Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit


when no-one's honest

 UFO PHYSICS                                   EXTERNAL                                    UFO SUMMARY 


A recent interview with Jacques Vallée reveals many previously suppressed facts - so found the interview (in video-shorts) for those in the wider world who have an interest in `reality' (and `surreal-reality').  [BTW - we owe many thanks to `theduderinok' who posted these shorts on YouTube]

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 21:12:04 -0000
Subject: Interview With Jacques Vallée On Video

Here you go List,

Hopefully this might dispel some of the misunderstandings (even animosity) that a few 'believers' seem to hold about Dr Vallée.

UFO's Contact with Jacques Vallee Part 1

Ray D

Personal note:
thing that surprised me most [about Jacques] wasn't the revelations of cover-up and official destruction of sightings evidence / reports from astronomers and pilots etc., both in USA and France.  It was his involvement with `remote viewing' [`Want-to-Know'], and the unexpected facts, previously `classified', on the extent - and success - of the program.  And that it is still on-going, albeit as seemingly un-funded private research (maybe after a CIA lock-down).

Here's some recent stuff on Remote Viewing subject - from insiders -

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:53:13 -0000
Subject: Now We know?

Hello List

Reports indicate that a heavy-handed cover-up of Saucers/UFOs began in late '40s.  A summary is here:

So we are forced to find what Gov't or Agencies know by inference, from their own actions and reactions.  The inference method is outlined here

Stanton Friedman posted that a certain science interview was "one of the best I have seen in ages", but it took me a while to realize that UK 'official agencies' - probably proxy CIA - had pressured Profs. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe to try to prevent discussion of an ET Intelligence, specifically of an advanced intelligence.  Quote here:

Now we know.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:36:24 -0000
Subject: Is Earth a Way Station?

Hello List

Recently some eminent Listers have put forward the hypothesis that Earth was and is invaded, overtly from late 1940's onward, and maybe covertly for a long period before.

Well, am personally convinced that a heavy cover-up began in late '40s (reports), and am also fairly sure there's a case for sightings (fortre1883 and wb2), and also a presence in myth & legend (green-man-search) throughout history.

But, from averaging all modern reports, think all we can say for sure about our visitors is that some or all of them need water, and some also like high voltage power, perhaps for propulsion or life-support systems.

So there's a possibility that Earth is merely a supply stop or way station, and that, like sailors sent ashore at a desert-island for freshwater or timber, the visitors regard Earth as 'uninhabited - having only some flora and fauna'.

As to why the cover-up - Earth's rulers rely on power and fear to dominate their subjects.  So they really dislike looking ineffectual and helpless  (Brookings Report at aliens.txt).

Even more humiliating would be the possibility that our strange visitors, from 'chupas' to humanoids, to automata, even to the 'Grays' & 'Nordics', are actually controlled by far-advanced intelligences (magic2  [or above]), and, like ship-owners of old, those intelligences don't know or care which planets their minions use as way stations.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:29:13 -0000
Subject: Is Earth a Way Station?

> From: Rick Nielsen
> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 10:08:33 -0700 (PDT)

>> The evidence seems to say there's likely to be organizing intelligences, in the universe and even in our galaxy, to which we would have the same relationship as a bacterium has to us.
> Does that evidence always track back to 'might makes right' as a law of the universe then? Or are we assigning motive to the motiveless?

Rick,  that is a huge question -
if we remember that life is now thought to be 'probably ubiquitous in the universe', and then check some evidence in near space, from NASA and USAF footage - here's a few shorts: `The Smoking Gun'

- then, just as we're now told that our kind of matter is only a small part of the universe (4%), it looks like our kind of life is also very small and insignificant;  i.e. that much bigger life exists, and more commonly, which is totally different to [and from] us.

So who can know their motives?

Ray D

PS - just found these short videos of what pilots (and some astronauts) are seeing but _not_ reporting any more -

An excellent, brutally frank exposure - UFO - The Greatest Story Ever Denied

And a UFO overview - "Out of the Blue"; `Most accurate Investigation into UFO's ever'  with Dr Edgar Mitchell  (1 hr 29 min).

Later - here's a typically understated Timothy Good interview where he relates information from the past that we've never heard or seen in mainstream media - plus he knows (but won't say for certain (assassinations too common?) what's happening now - Need to Know: Timothy Good Pt.1 - "The most important subject facing this planet"

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:38:55 -0000
Subject: Co-Incidentally Or Not

Hello List

In the intro to 'Best UFO documentary'
I noticed a quote saying (paraphrased)  "The pressure for international secrecy on ET/UFOs is being applied mainly by the US & UK"  and I think that'll ring a bell with most long-term observers, bearing in mind intermittent openings-up by France, Russia, China etc.

Co-incidentally or not, accidentally saw FBI boss Ted Gunderson's opening speech  "It's time you knew the Truth"
and some connected revealings of corruption - at  (two UK, others USA).

Those articles indicate that the two major centers of official corruption - of oppression, people trafficking, drug running, gun running & vice slavery (inc pedophile) networks - are the USA and the UK.

So, the two most corrupt seekers after power are also the most intent on putting-off ET/UFO acknowledgment.  This should give us cause for concern.

Final acknowledgment is only a matter of time  -  so what are they aiming to inflict or grab before that deadline?

Ray D

BTW - as a UK citizen (and ex-Army) I stress we're not talking about the people of those countries - just the 'rulers'.

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:42:39 +0100
Subject: ETs & Martyn Stubbs' Research

Hello List,

I feel a bit slow, like a kid who's missed a few classes and is trying to catch up.

Reason is - have finally got round to seeing the complete 'Smoking Gun' video presentation by Martyn Stubbs.

Martyn Stubbs has changed everything.

The original is 90 minutes and has a long preamble (maybe why I hadn't got to it),  but was so impressed that have traced YouTube versions (plus Netherlands just in case),  so you can have 9 min shorts to choose from:  @  ufo-uap.html#yu-tu

So have had revise my opinions drastically,  to add another entity to the two or three that we have to consider,  and to ponder deeply (but uselessly) on the 'dimensionality' of an entity that I'd thought was almost mundane - though extra- terrestrial.

Now have two urgent questions for anyone - preferably Mr Stubbs:

i) what significance do we attach to the fact that the largest entity (some miles across - a notched circle, with a distinctive motion) always seems to present a 'full-face' to the viewer?  If it's true it might indicate a 'dimensional' extension (into our dimensions);

ii) are there any further clues about the real shape or materiality of the ultra-fast third kind of entity?  (when they hang around to have a good look at a space capsule it seems they might tarry for as long as 1/60th of a second).

That's another reason I feel a bit slow.

Ray D

[ here's a (maybe shaky) analysis ]

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:15:49 +0100
Subject: More Than Fifty Years Of Lies

Hello List,

Checking short (9 min) videos is giving some correlations, here's one -

In 1952 a Navy officer took photos of large formations of `self- luminous' silvery spheres in Utah.  As Hynek says (in vid) they were judged by Navy experts as _not_ explainable as birds, balloons or anything else conventional.  But the Robertson Panel - - looked at them and said "They can't be unidentified, therefore they must be birds".  Here's the video: (from "UFO's - It Has Begun"

And in 2006 Santiago Yturria Garza & Jaime Maussan presented several films to conference, taken around Mexico City during mass sightings of exactly the same formations - here's one video:
[Seems to get deleted regularly - just google "Jaime Maussan 2006", it's usually pt. 3 of 9]

Then the `Smoking Gun' video presents several sequences of the same formations, this time filmed from above - from space - by US and Russian spacecraft.  I think some are at [part 10, 11, or 12]

What did NASA say? (It's in the video)  First they said 'video- fuzz', then, maybe realizing that sounded a bit lame, they later claim the formations are `ice crystals'!

That's removed any uncertainty I might've had about NASA's honesty, or any other government body's.  They don't have any.


From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:37:24 +0100

>From: Brian Ally
>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:04:51 -0400

>>From: Kathy Kasten
>>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:35:32 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking Says We're Cranks & Weirdos

>Though I'm always pleased to see books on scientific subjects
>enjoying popular attention, I won't dispute your opinion that
>Hawking's book (whichever one you were referring to) wasn't
>deserving of any Top Ten Lists. That is, after all, your
>opinion. But I will suggest that your reaction to it is simply
>the result of your incomprehension of the subject matter.

Hi Brian,
Sadly there is no subject matter, other than a purely mathematical speculation about the putative attributes of a hypothetical singularity.  Which, by the way looks likely to be entirely baseless, as a small but growing group of rated scientists are now questioning the existence of 'black holes'.

Here's Feynman on the intrinsic worth of such mathematical speculations:  feyngrav.txtinertfey.txt

The establishment has had an agenda in cosmology.  This can be seen by peer review journals - even Nature - refusing to publish quality papers, most of which have since been proved true, because they countered the 'doomed universe' big-bang - big crunch falsity the establishment favored  (since proved untrue).  Some details at: greatest.html#tinsley

Since then that agenda's been quieter but maybe more insidious, concentrating on eventual doom from 'black holes.  But that's had to be extensively modified since origin (no evidence of 'event horizons' or of 'singularities' or any other predicted signs) and now has to include outflowing 'jets' (impossible for original putative 'black hole') and other already observed phenomena which you'd get from a neutron star or indeed almost _any_ high density / high mass body with sufficient angular momentum.  You don't need 'black holes' for those.

Further, not one original 'black hole' prediction has been confirmed.  So what they've done is add-on 'after the event' things already seen in the universe and claim that they're now signs of 'black holes'.  You don't need 'black holes' for those.

The mainstream scientists were so eager to jump on the 'black hole' band-wagon (it ensured funding) that they forgot to check basic physics.  If you want the simplest and most obvious problems first, try:  nblckhls.html  and be warned, there are more abstruse reasons below that.

Simply put, an `event horizon' would drag background starlight towards itself - resulting in large brilliant 'targets' surrounded by darkness in the night sky.  We don't see them.  So the agenda has shifted stance and is now implying that maybe 'black holes' only live in galactic centers.  Well, again that argument could apply to _any_ sufficiently high mass / high density phenomena, which certainly do live in galactic centers.  You don't need 'black holes' for those.

You can see that long-term the establishment agenda has had two prongs:
i) wanting the most doom-laden scenario;
ii) insisting that authority has to be always 'right'

- resulting in a mass of contradictions like the present 'standard model'.  Cosmologists are so worried about it they've had several secretive conferences in the last few years.

You have to feel sorry for them in a way - their best policy would be to admit 'We got it wrong so we're going to scrap it all and start again from scratch' - but of course authority doesn't like to admit being wrong.

As we can see almost every week in Ufology.

Ray D

LATER - after that (somewhat hasty & impatient) response had a look around, here's quick bunch of results

re: `big bang'

Crisis in Cosmology

The Big Bang Never Happened: ~

Big Bang Breakdown by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Scientists question our understanding of the universe

Tom Van Flandern's "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang"

WHAT if the big bang never happened? Marcus Chown

re: `black holes'

Chapline: black holes don't exist

Black holes don't exist, says BARC scientist

Black Holes Don't Exist, Say Physicists

Here's a follow-on -

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:11:50 +0100
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking Says We're Cranks & Weirdos

Hello List,

As this discussion began between those who regard Hawking as a far-seeing scientist and those who don't - perhaps this just-found example of another thing Hawking got wrong might be pertinent:

February 10 2003
"Scientists ranging from Cambridge University physicist Professor Stephen Hawking to Albert Einstein, have argued that the universe eventually will stop expanding and then implode under the force of gravity, destroying all life.

NASA's research indicates, however, that this analysis is wrong.  Using a satellite - the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP), which has spent the past year peering into deep space - NASA has discovered a pattern of "hot spots" which, it says, proves that the universe is accelerating.

This means, says NASA, "that the universe is expanding too quickly to collapse."

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:28:22 +0100
Subject: Fermi's 'Paradox' Cancelled?

Hello List,

After email chat with some clear-thinking folk, got around to considering the 'Fermi paradox' (actually just a question), and a couple of things came together -

i) that, in the opinion of many folks we are bound to see automated craft / scouts way before any 'manned' visitor craft - like 'Von Neumann probes' - Wiki reference at -   and that seems to be backed up by our own preference for cheaper / safer robot explorers;

ii) that Martyn Stubbs has actually found evidence of such probes - only they move so fast they're usually invisible unless you break down the video frames (and so they _were_ deniable by NASA - but not any more!).

Here's Youtube of Martyn explaining how he did it  `Secret NASA Transmissions Pt 2';   Seems his wife had cause for complaint, for almost five years his evenings after work were intermittently dedicated to this.

So that 'paradox' might've been solved - in a more up-front way.


The full video is called the `Smoking Gun'

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:46:51 +0100
Subject: Question For Pilots/Controllers

Hello List,

You've probably seen the same stuff as me, from the Disclosure Project presentations.

Re-viewed an interview with a military radar operator Michael Smith - Early Warning / NORAD - where he explained why he'd normally deny the existence of anomalous radar returns, "don't discuss them", [ie - lie to police, pilots asking if UFOs seen on radar] and how two B52's got diverted around three UFOs to prevent an accidental 'meeting'.

It's at  `UFO ET Disclosure 3/15'.

It suddenly struck me - are pilots being routinely lied-to by controllers and radar operators under military or government orders?

If so - isn't that a little dangerous?

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:03:37 +0100
Subject: SETI's real objectives?

Hello List,

"A civilization very much more advanced than we will be engaged in a busy communications traffic with its peers; but not with us, and not via technologies accessible to us."
Communication With Extraterrestrial Intelligence - Carl Sagan (ed.) 1973 p. 366

"Communication is a universal, but the use of radio is a parochial, when we go out into the Galaxy... a radio signal will be about as useful as a smoke signal.  Communication evolves"
Evolving The Alien - Profs. Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart, 2002. ISBN 0-09-187927-2

i) it's likeliest that SETI aren't looking for advanced civilizations, not even slightly advanced, because our more efficient radio signals are indistinguishable from noise - unless you have the code-key.  And, like those three say above, more advanced folk won't be using radio at all;

ii) most sincere technical UFO/ET tracking & monitoring attempts by private citizens have been forcibly closed-down by gov't agencies, with burning of records & publications, arrests, imprisonment and even deaths of investigators;

iii) strategically, gov't is only interested in ETs within a few light years - if much further away they won't be coming here (in a political life-time anyway), and we can't get there.

Putting those three together you get:

a) that SETI is really looking for nearby 'primitives' - pretty much like us;

b) that SETI is really a covert, deniable, government agency.

Ray D

From: Steven Kaeser
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:35:02 -0400
Subject: Re: SETI's Real Objectives?

If you feel strongly about it, write to your elected representatives and make sure they don't fund SETI in the future. I think they already are privately based at this point. But some might argue that any effort at all is better than no effort at all, and at least this keeps a focus outward.
Unfortunately, I fear that we will face far more difficult economic issues that will likely preclude a lot of exploration in the near future.

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 21:50:32 +0100

Hi Steven,

Maybe those fears are misplaced, although the public might be allowed to think that.

From occasional news releases by government approved science / corporates I get the impression a good deal of investment is already going into things like future Mars projects - and that it won't be threatened by national economic woes.  You can provide your own reasons why that should be so.

BTW - I put one of them on-line a few years ago: that Mars is a logical base for making and assembling Sun-power capture shields.  It's too dangerous to have such big things between Earth and the Sun, because accidents happen.  Now though, I'm also weighing a reason suggested by other folk - of Mars being used as a 'bunker' or 'hideaway'.

As far as SETI's 'real objectives' are concerned, look around us for motives - our Earth is depleted of resources and heavily polluted, plus the population isn't taking kindly to being made slaves - in all countries.

So maybe our international 'rulers' are trying to beat Lenin's forecast (made to H G Wells in 1920), one last time.

Apparently Lenin said:
"I understand this myself when I read your novel The Time Machine.  All human conceptions are on a scale of our planet.  They are based on the pretension that the technical potential, although it will develop, will never exceed the 'terrestrial limit'.
If we succeed in establishing interplanetary communication, all our philosophical, moral and social views will have to be revised.  In this case, the technical potential, become limitless, would impose the end of the role of violence as a means and method of progress."

Only for 'progress' you should always read 'acquisition'.


From: Stuart Miller
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:13:16 +0100
Subject: Re: SETI's Real Objectives?

>>Putting those three together you get:
>>a) that SETI is really looking for nearby 'primitives' - pretty much like us;
>>b) that SETI is really a covert, deniable, government agency.

Hi Ray,
While I acknowledge that you labelled this "Speculation", I think the very last conclusion is taking things a bit too far.  They are not a government agency, as you must know,
Stuart Miller
Alien Worlds magazine

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 14:22:49 +0100

Hello Stuart,

Right, maybe should've said `proxy / tool of government' - folk can be literal-minded.

A method which works where there's mystery and skullduggery is like checking a pool in the forest to find -  a) does it have a source? and -  b) where is the alligator?

With a very long pole and a secure stand, you probe and stir up the bottom.  Where the mud swirls instead of settling - there's your source stream.  And where the end of the pole gets bitten off - there's your alligator.

This is a similar exercise - and I'm watching for the alligator.

Even so, those two `speculative' conclusions seem to fit the facts and SETI behavior patterns better than alternatives.

Ray D

>From: James Horak
>To: ufoupdates at
>Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 06:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: SETI's Real Objectives?

>What could be awakened in the human heart and mind to know,
>really know, all the fodder we're fed by religion and governments
>(in concert) is crap?

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:56:04 +0100

Hello James,

Your (entire) post is more rational and impartial than most on the subject.

I don't come to List discussions as a `ufologist' because I'm not one of those.  The other day got a `media request' asking for opinions and also asking how I wanted to be billed - as an expert of some sort?

Replied - "I'm an ex-army `trouble-shooter' (technical and systems `fault-finder' in UK military terms)  ... the tax people have me down as a self-employed `information analyst' or `information consultant', can't remember which."  (FULL REPLY)

That was only necessary because in today's world we have to address many subjects and I personally want to retain impartiality and also to avoid being labeled (or `smeared') as a specialist or campaigner of _any_ sort.

Coincidentally sent this today - "questions on (say) taxation, policing, law, judiciary and war generate a cloud of pompous but spurious waffle and no hard facts"  - and feel that applies equally well to the establishment's treatment of Ufology's researches.


>From: Stuart Miller
>To: ufoupdates at
>Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:21:54 +0100
>Subject: Re: SETI's Real Objectives?

>>Also, looking at the military 'dis-info' imperatives imposed on
>>NASA personnel, presumably by another agency, we can realize
>>that the same has almost certainly been applied to SETI. There
>>_is_ a certain similarity in the knee-jerk responses from both
>>in recent years, have you noticed?

>I'm not being deleberately awkward when I say that no, I haven't. I
>would apply that to NASA as well. I think SETI are untouched by disnfo
>imperatives ( so far) and believe me, I'd be shouting if I thought

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 16:08:56 +0100

Hi Stuart,

As outlined in my [last], most input on SETI's behavior is necessarily circumstantial, but on this point we've got recent text and video evidence, found accidentally, since I don't usually check SETI `comment' stuff.

When an astronomer makes pointed and sarcastic comments about an area outside astronomy, we might justifiably think he's either a) an opinionated fool, or b) acting under orders.

BTW - you can watch an astronomer lying under orders - Hynek being forced to make his `Swamp Gas' statement only hours after admitting to local Sheriff Douglas Harvey that:  a) he had no explanation of the multiple sighting;  b) he had just received orders from the Pentagon to `produce' an explanation.

And here's Jacques Vallée telling how his boss, chief astronomer (Paris?), destroyed recordings of sightings: "Jacques Vallée Pt.1". [on-line account] - if those are down, he repeats it in Messengers of Deception (SCRIBD)

Listers might've seen, in the last year or so, video and text of Shostak [of SETI] making pointed and sarcastic comments about `aliens', about UFOs and Ufology, and about ET hypotheses - all outside of his area of competence, which is astronomy.

So - was that an opinionated fool or someone acting under orders?

I don't think Shostak is a fool.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 16:40:11 +0100
Subject: Flotillas over the Americas

Hello List,

These `fleets' or `flotillas' are large groups of apparent spheres [or discs?], seemingly self-luminous and moving in unison, sometimes in aligned groups.  They can comprise hundreds of objects or craft.

First well-documented * `fleet' [earlier reports here] I can find is over Mexico, observed by chief astronomer Jose Bonilla through 12 - 14th August 1883.  The fleet was at a height of 150,000 miles, higher than most satellite orbits, more than halfway to the Moon.  Bonilla counted 447 of the craft but there were clearly many more.  See bonilla.html (world's first UFO photo is at page).

Next, a Navy officer got the first film of a `fleet' over Utah in 1952, at an unstated altitude.  A clip is at 01:00 to 01:30 mins in this video, after Hynek says the Navy had definitely determined `they weren't birds, balloons, aircraft etc', and immediately following the words "self-luminous unidentified objects" -

The Robertson Panel [of senior scientists] (wikipedia), saw the film and knew the facts but willfully denied them, claiming (according to Hynek): `They can't be unidentified, therefore they must be birds'.
So the Robertson Panel lied to us.

Next is more film and photos of the `fleet' (or `flotilla' in the words of Santiago Yturria Garza), again over Mexico, apparently from the early '90's onwards (can't find any altitude statements).  A 2006 Conference presentation (2/9) of the `fleets' is by Jaime Maussan and Santiago Yturria Garza.  The media have mostly claimed they were `balloons', despite overwhelming evidence against.
[June 2009 Update from ICH - means we have to include `Hollywood' here]
So the media have lied to us.

BTW - it is inconceivable that astronomers are not seeing these objects.  [In his book `Forbidden Science' (pp. 54 - 59), Jacques Vallée told how a chief astronomer at the Paris Observatory deliberately destroyed the records of a well observed set of sightings by a team of astronomers.]
[And Allen Hynek: "Astronomers do see UFOs" -]
So the [chief] astronomers have lied to us.

Further, the `fleets' have been filmed from space, both by the Russian MIR and the USA's satellites and Shuttles.  Here's text and video of a long sighting [co-incidentally while passing over Mexico], and comment, from around 04:30 in:

In the video Houston ground-control says - `bed-of-diamonds' and then asks `is that a real picture or ... video fuzz?'.  After a long delay Columbia decides to claim they were `ice-crystals'.
So NASA has lied to us.

More recently Shostak of SETI has been denying the existence of UFOs, sometimes quite sharply.  Again, it is inconceivable that Shostak, a veteran professional astronomer and close to NASA, is not aware of these fleets and the history of their observations.  So it seems SETI's Shostak is either surprisingly ignorant or he has lied to us.

There might've been different personal reasons for the lies - but I think pressure from the same source caused them all.  So who's got the biggest motive to deny that large fleets of unidentified craft are constantly flying over the Americas?

Ray D

Re: `UFO Fleets Report'   Farmington, NM. - 1950
Recently - 2010 - heard rumour in `Aztec 1948 UFO Crash' video (towards the end), that the Farmington UFO Armada was a show-of-force or in remembrance of the two earlier losses of UFOs at Roswell and then at Aztec, both nearby.

1952 DC Flap
`Washington DC - July 1952 - UFOs were photographed flying over the Capitol building during a wave of sightings above the city' - Picture: US Air Force From `Daily Telegraph' (UK).

See - "Washington UFOs - 1952 - Intro" & "Washington UFOs - Background" and the investigation - "1952 - YEAR OF THE UFO" by Dr. Bruce Maccabee

[Seems that more, smaller, fleets continued, through August and September, w/groups of UFOs appoaching DC from the east, a batch was notable on 12 Sept (see relevant BlueBook page, & note all pertinent entries - for Wahington DC and then for Flatwoods - are marked "METEOR"), when one overflew DC and maybe crashlanded at Flatwoods WV; - see Stanton Friedman's comments]

* Earlier reports here -
August 7th, 1869: Iowa & Kentucky; December 1875 - January 22nd, 1876: Rio De Janeiro

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 23:08:21 +0100
Subject: Changing views

Hello List,

In the hurly-burly of skeptic media attacks and counter-attacks it's easy to lose track of wider views changing.  So was happily surprised to find a last year's broadsheet article admitting -

"After decades of denial scientists are finally admitting that there is life out there."

"Today, our understanding of the cosmos has changed so much that for the first time searching for signs of life in other solar systems is not just a philosopher's dream but on the list of planned human endeavours.  All the scientists I questioned agreed that alien life is inevitable and ubiquitous."

and, warningly -

"As from 1927, we have been propagating outwards from Earth, a very specific indicator of our existence.  These radio waves have since travelled 80 light years out into the universe. That is going to encompass many hundreds of potentially habitable planets," he said.  "If there is intelligent life out there, they sure as hell know we are here."
(more at page)

In fact, from the work of Appleyard and others, it seems one or two gov't advisors thought "they knew we were here" from about 1947, which I think was also the start of the real Gov't disinformation and anti- UFology campaigns in the US & UK.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:00:03 +0100

>From: From: Greg Boone
>To: ufoupdates at
>Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 02:28:49 EDT
>Subject: British UFO Shocker!

>quote - "Whatever they were, these phenomena reported to Britain's
>Ministry of Defense over the years and made public this month were
>almost certainly not actual alien aircraft piloted by actual alien
- unquote

>It's either/or...

Right Greg,

Joining up some dots ...

Like the Robertson Panel,  the M.o.D (and Dave Clarke) have asserted a negative - without any evidence.

I.e. - a statement of belief - but no evidence.

I think we should know where that `belief' comes from - meditation? magical rites? or directly from a higher power?

Such `knowledge' might be useful.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:04:11 +0100
Subject: Is Ufology Doing All Of Its Job?

Most Listers know I don't do investigation or even compiling, being at one remove and liking to step back and look at the more impressive cases on record.

That's written records from the past - Fortean stuff - and the best investigated & presented stuff from the present.  Among others that'll be Shag Harbour, the Black Box Cockpit series, Serling & Vallée's 1976 'It Has Begun', some of Jaime Maussan's Conference presentations (go "Jaime Maussan videos"), and Birdsall & Stubbs 'NASA Smoking Gun' series and follow-up, etc.

Looking at mainstream media responses, something hits home.

As Jaime Maussan complained, about the Mexican military FLIR film, in each case a dozen or so ridiculous debunking*  'explanations' are immediately floated and, more significantly, these are written into the record without serious question by the media - or Wiki.

It strikes me that Ufology isn't doing all of its job.  It's surely part of Ufology's task to expose fake 'ridiculous debunking'*  and to name and shame the culprits.  Also - it seems there aren't too many of those propagandists;  i.e. most fake 'explanations' emanate from just a few sources.  And I'm sure most of you know those sources better than me.

So how about it?

Ray D

PS - should've included `The greatest story ever denied, a summary of what's happening, which gives you real facts.

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 21:42:18 +0100
Subject: Re: Is Ufology Doing All Of Its Job?

Thanks to All for the comments.  Bearing them in mind, suggest a minimalist approach.

Any Lister, or friend-of, with a web-site can put a panel on their page(s), titled 'Deceptive Debunkers'*  or something like that - so when a case occurs and is posted on the List, we can all simply enter the details on our web-pages, like so -

(hypothetical entry - he already confessed)
"J.A Hynek Ph D, speaking for the USAF, apparently thinks 'swamp-gas' can perfectly imitate a fairground carousel for hours on end, fly at 300 mph etc., freely relocate to other places while steadily illuminating both itself and the surrounding area."
(don't remember the real details - just made that up

- with links to the most accurate Press reports, or our own reports.

In other areas have found that cover-ups and deflections of public concern are usually achieved by the guilty parties, simply by inserting what looks like an 'instant rebuttal' in the media and relying on our faulty human memory to create the impression that -  'Oh yes - that was all solved wasn't it'.

What they really don't want is the full facts kept in the public mind, with the ridiculousness of those 'explanations' exposed and preserved for all to see.

If we keep it short, sharp and truthful, with no digressions into rants or private feuds etc, think it can serve as a just punishment and a warning to others.  Scientists tend not to want their name associated with ridicule in the public mind.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:48:43 +0100

>From: Alfred Lehmberg
>To: ufoupdates at
>Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:23:22 -0500
>Subject: SDI #459 20 Questions
>12. MOD Files release: Unappreciated forthcoming-ness or more of
>the same old artful-dodgy formlessness?

Hi Alfred,

As a Welshman brought up in England have seen some of what you imply (your "British" comments were snipped but much enjoyed).

The English gov't of UK, like most gov'ts do, continually lies about the things vital to them.

What are those things?  i) taxation (always corrupt);  ii) law & policing and law-courts (again corrupt - but selectively); and  iii) "the threat".

Gov'ts always need a "threat" to justify their immoral actions - but they never want to appear 'helpless' in face of that (usually fictional) "threat".  So any real challenge (or threat) has to be ignored, censored, kept from public knowledge.

I've learned to look for what people and organizations _don't_ say.  It's usually a better indicator of their real motives.  And so have come to the conclusion that some folk apparently in the 'Ufology' field are actually covert professional (paid) 'debunkers'.*

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:47:16 +0100
Subject: The Wait

Thanks to off-List input, this might be a warning or a promise.

Our evolutionary ancestry tries to pull us in two different directions - 'getting' or 'sharing'.

A look at the higher animals, including us, shows archeological and modern evidence of 'sharing' - the presence of injured or deformed individuals who could not have fed themselves.

But the history of our rulers shows mostly their conspicuous consumption - treasure and gluttony at the expense of the poor.

We're probably at, or nearly at, a point of no return for the Earth, and the traditional greed and paranoia of our rulers looks as if it could be suicidal for all of us.

JCH makes the point that the visible UFO/ET presence around and outside of the Earth could be waiting to see what our choice will be.

If correct, that could have interesting implications about (some) ET intellect, past experience, and maybe even 'morality'.  But the reason for the wait is still moot.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:28:34 +0100
Subject: Water Or Stone?

Hello List,

After observing for a relatively short time I am getting irritated by a common untruth:  that "there is at present no evidence of UFO / ET presence".

`No evidence'?   Absolute rubbish.  Crap.

By all the 'rules of evidence' the UFO / ET presence was proven, absolutely, even before the massive input of testimony and film from the 1950s onwards.

Alone, the Bonilla (1883) and Fatima (1917) sightings meet all the requirements of both courtroom and scientific proof of a UFO / ET presence.  And now NASA's own recordings have similarly 'proved' the lively and ubiquitous existence of UFO / ET beyond any reasonable doubt.

When we see this 'no evidence' phrase used by an uninformed and/or corrupt media we can maybe understand the reason.  But how can we tolerate its use by those who claim to be informed on these matters?  Some even claiming membership of the Ufological discipline?

There's an old saying that constant drops of water wear away the strongest stone.

Which do we want to be?

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:40:45 +0100

>From: Ed Gehrman
>To: ufoupdates at
>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:46:14 -0700
>Subject: Re: A Messenger Of Deception Succeeds

>>From: Michael Tarbell
>>To: ufoupdates at
>>Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:08:04 -0600
>>Subject: Re: A Messenger Of Deception Succeeds

>>The only thing I find impossible here is your knowledge that
>>interstellar travel is impossible... you _don't_ know that Ed,
>>and you _can't_ know that. You may surmise it as you choose,
>>and may even be correct, but it is not even explicitly ruled
>>out by existing physical theory, and even if it were, these
>>theories may be incomplete, or simply wrong.

>It is ruled out by "existing physical theory". That has always
>been my main contention and the reason that science doesn't
>accept the evidence that we are being visited. The vast majority
>of scientists don't think its possible. Yes, there are
>individual scientist who disagree, but they are in the minority.

Perk up Ed,

The `majority of scientists' have always been wrong.  Always, throughout history.

In the `Black Box' video - "Pilot UFO Sightings recordings 2/4"  [link opens about 5 mins in]  Dr Richard Haines (ex NASA) admits modern science doesn't know how the inertial compasses (gyros) of an airliner were affected by a nearby UFO.

He said "We can't do that".  Apparently `they' can.

And that means they are not limited to light speed;  anyone who can control `inertia' is immune to the mass-increase effect of Relativity theory.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:50:23 +0100

>From: Ed Gehrman
>To: ufoupdates at
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:33:25 -0700
>Subject: Re: A Messenger Of Deception Succeeds

>>From: Ray Dickenson
>>To: ufoupdates at
>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:40:45 +0100

>>He said, "We can't do that...".  Apparently they can.

>The main problem is that you can't get your head around the idea
>of a 100 million year advanced ancient earthly civilization.

Right and true Ed,

Sagan and others have stressed that no-one can imagine the powers of a really advanced species.  And I think Cohen & Stewart added - "We simply would not know they were here unless they wanted us to".

To me that suggests there's more to the modern UFO/ET phenomenon than simple visits from a single species  - from wherever or whenever.  And, unless we're living at a special time, it might have a long history on Earth.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 20:23:13 +0100
The Gamekeeper versus the Police-chief and ,,,

Hello List,

It seems I've been swindled - we've all been swindled.

Scott Felton has kindly shared a whole wodge of information which I'll try to present on a HTML page (fate willing) sometime soon.

In the meantime it's at berwyn-ufo.txt - and it's interesting reading.

A summary of conclusions:  - "no poachers - no lamp - wrong mountain - police lied, turned away medic, turned away `civ-mountain rescue' so obviously no `air-crash' expected - but `something' expected? - only military wanted - quake [and `several differently-angled meteors'] cover-up later".

This should be the location Googlemap,  centered on the nurse's vantage point about 4-5 miles S-W of Llandrillo, near that little box saying B4391 -

And here's the same map for terrain -
- the big lump to right (E & S) of Llandrillo is Cader Bronwen, where the police arrived and searched and where the hunters (not `poachers') had been till they went home at about 9:15 - 9:25 pm, passing the police on way down.

The two lumps below that are Moel Sych (facing the nurse's vantage point when she arrived at 10 pm.) and Cader Berwyn.

Moel Sych & Cader Berwyn were dark and quiet that night - except for a U(F)O on the ground?

If you dive into his full text,  better bear in mind that's an angry man writing.

I recognize the style because I was the same a few years ago, after returning to UK to find it mostly ruled by suited (and uniformed) pigs, all snouts deep in the same trough - and worse.

So if you do try it - have some coffee.

Ray D

Recent answer to a query
- a meteor `shower' appears to radiate from a point in the sky, though In reality they are travelling parallel,  its just that when wide-spaced parallel lines approach an observer they _seem_ to diverge  (hence the `fan effect' of sunshine breaking through a distant cloud layer).

A meteor shower _cannot_ result in separate meteors moving in radically different directions across a small region of the Earth  - i.e at right-angles across UK from just two of the {Berwyn] reports.

As for the `meteor' travelling low and straight as I seem to remember from the east-west case, maybe check this FoI released tape -   (9 min video)  - wait for the Scottish [pilot's] voice and his reasoned opinion why their UFO could not have been a meteor.

That is, meteors can't fly at constant speed and elevation: they _fall_ under gravity and braking effects from burn-up in the atmosphere.

NEWS 05 July '08
  Real people (`professionals') are angry at the long-running lies from BBC, Radio & TV, Press, & de-bunkers, and the Police complicity in cover-up and mis - information (lying to the public).    08 July '08 UPDATE to NEWS  Got some helpful answers and info from a professional.     09 July UPDATE  + lowdown on lying media -
The Berwyn Mountains Cover-up (text copy).

Scott kindly gave permission for me to download his latest interview on the Berwyns Incident; given to Europe Radio - RD

`Unanswered  &  Unexplained'

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008

From recent news:-, or
`The unanswered questions' - Professor Brian Cox (particle physics, Manchester University) - quote - "the wheels are starting to come off our picture of reality"., or
`The dark flow' - quote - "this motion is caused by structures well beyond the current cosmological horizon, which is more than 14 billion light-years away".

Just that last item implies the real universe can be ten times, or hundreds or thousands of times bigger, and therefore older, than we thought.

So we could be looking at evolution (and migration, and advancement) opportunities stretching back trillions of years, compared to our Earth life's evolution of 3 or 4 billion, and our human technology of perhaps two hundred years.

Taken with the first item, and with John D Barrow's forecast, in The Constants of Nature, that  "eventually, our current theories will all be shown to be wrong",  it seems we're just peeking over the backyard fence, as far as knowledge is concerned.

Ray D

Organized `Dogmatic Debunkers' and Cover-ups

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 13:52:08 +0100
Subject: Re: Debunking In The Darkness

>Source: Robert Barrow's Blog

>Debunkers. You know who you are and, even better, we know who
>you are. You're the folks who consistently gather before an
>anxious public every time a UFO sighting occurs because you want
>to flash your impressive credentials. Because you firmly believe
>your professional status gives you license - lacking even the
>bare minimum of facts about a case - to tell people they're
>only seeing meteorites or birds or balloons or clouds or sun
>dogs or conventional aircraft. Or unconventional conventional
>aircraft. Your status as self-proclaimed UFO explainers-away
>feels good, doesn't it?

That reference to qualified or academic types recalled a science item from last year:  "Liberals More Likely Than Conservatives To Break From Habitual Responses"  - at:

Last year had immediately thought that was a false premise, that the correlation was there but it really meant (imho) - "Free-thinkers are more likely to see the unexpected than dogmatic types"  - i.e.,  that there's nothing specifically political there.

Because earlier armchair research showed sharp differences of perceptions in the 'new brain' (cerebrum - logic, empathy, consciousness), compared with the 'old brain' or 'lizard brain' (inc. cerebellum - learned routines, 'instincts', fear, hatred etc).

So added a conclusion to a piece on 'consciousness' - "formalizing or 'professionalizing' any of these abilities will immediately put them under the control of the old brain's cerebellum... [and]... might be responsible for colder, more selfish attitudes displayed by professionals and academics".

Already had separate evidence from Professor Arthur Ellison's experiments:  of having a bowl of flowers magnetically 'floated' sometime during his lectures and checking which of the audience noticed.  The skeptics couldn't see it happening - right before their eyes.

Maybe this all needs linking-up  - that dogmatic types  _and_ those trotting out formally learned responses simply aren't capable of seeing unexpected phenomena or of thinking logically about such things.

Ray D

UPDATE Sept. 2008
Here's another confirming / overlapping science outcome - and reckon it's also been slightly mis-labeled, as `Nervous people are likely to be right-wing' - at

As we've already seen above, dogmatic people don't see much of `reality' - so they're bound to be more nervous and more extremist.  Unfortunately they're also the types most motivated to be `in charge' and dominating agencies of power.



By L David Leiter, `The Pathology of Organized Skepticism' - for the Society for Psychical Research -

"Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics' organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous.  There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind.  Anyone who has spent much time engaging members of Skeptics' organizations knows about their strong inclination toward ridicule and ad hominem criticism of those with differing viewpoints."

David Leiter - Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 125-128, 2002 0892-3310/02

UPDATE - Nov '8 - Check of organized cover-ups & `debunking',  to mislead and deceive.

UPDATE2 - Seems some `Skeptic Orgs' will descend to fakery and rigging to obtain their "proofs" - see `Mars Effect Controversy' - [plain text copy]

UPDATE3 - Ongoing reports / conclusions at INDEX#skeptic

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:57:01 +0100

>From: Nick Balaskas
>Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 15:22:10 -0400
>Subject: Re: Russian Orthodox Church Excludes UFOs

>Our 21st century thinking has become too restricted and we may
>never come to a true understanding about UFOs and the advanced
>intelligences associated with them without reconsidering what
>the Bible and the Church Fathers had to say on this subject.
>Don't let different terminology such as angels and demons with
>the biases and preconceptions that come with these names divert
>us from our search for the truth. Maybe we should listen more to
>what Orthodox, Muslim, Roman Catholic and other ancient
>religions and "mythologies" have to say on this subject on which
>we still are in the dark.

Right Nick,

From my perspective it seems that world-wide, state educational systems are being reduced to dogmatisms - rote-learning from a narrow base of 'approved' text books.

Having taught adult students in the military & later in mid-East & UK, think the main secret to good teaching, in addition to some tricks of the trade, is to always have something truthful and interesting to impart and to encourage vigorous debate / argument.  Students aren't stupid and want i) truth, ii) intellectual challenge.

Right now though it looks like 'real' teaching is going out, being replaced by bureaucratic 'lecturing' in a deadening safety-first culture, where intellectual questioning is not wanted or even allowed.

The change in just a generation is downright startling.  And, because mainstream media seem to have followed or even led that change, it sort-of reminds me that "in politics nothing happens by accident" (FDR).

Guess what other area has had inquiry restricted during this generation?

Ray D

About the Phenomena

Note: perhaps we should consider some implications of technological limitations and expected progression:-

Communication times - depend on level of technology.  It's feasible that those commanding `entanglement physics' might well have instantaneous comms at any distance - which might explain some otherwise strange co-incidences.

Travel distances - time-dilation is a quite important effect, whether agents are traveling f.t.l or not.  So some, maybe most visitors might well have `no home to go to' - excepting those bases relatively close to the Solar System.
I.e. - their `home' generations may have passed away hundreds or more years ago.

Of course, some agents' missions might well have been designed as one-way trips anyway, with or without their knowledge.

(As you might imagine with us in such circumstances, psychological stresses can be expected, and maybe understood.  The clashes are between mission objectives and personal survival motivations and will be (maybe only slightly) modified by agents' social conditioning, if any.)

Earlier had made attempts to review ordinary scientific research in the last century - it showed signs of a `stutter'.  Which then led on to finding a similar `stutter' regarding strange sightings, which happened at same time - mid twentieth-century

Here's REPORTS (rather astonishing to us) of the complete freedom of expression you would've found pre-1940.

Contrast that with some collected officialdom's REPORTS from post 1950

The evidence seems to say sightings were previously made and reported frankly by qualified observers.  Then the qualified observers stopped reporting sightings c. 1950.  Why?

From Wiki on E.T.H

In a letter that was published in the New York Times. Fort wrote, "If it is not the respectable or conventional thing upon this earth to believe in visitors from other worlds, most of us would watch them a week and declare that they were something else, and likely make things disagreeable for anyone who thought otherwise."[8]
According to a 1969 lecture by Carl Sagan: "The idea of benign or hostile super beings from other planets visiting the earth [is clearly] an emotional idea. There are two sorts of self-deception here: either accepting the idea of extraterrestrial visitation in the face of very meager evidence because we want it to be true; or rejecting such an idea out of hand, in the absence of sufficient evidence, because we don't want it to be true. Each of these extremes is a serious impediment to the study of UFOs."[18].
Astrophysicist Dr. Peter A. Sturrock wrote that for many years, "discussions of the UFO issue have remained narrowly polarized between advocates and adversaries of a single theory, namely the extraterrestrial hypothesis ... this fixation on the ETH has narrowed and impoverished the debate, precluding an examination of other possible theories for the phenomenon."[19]
According to Dr. Frank B. Salisbury of Utah State University, in order to prevent science from descending into pseudosciences, some burden of proof must also be be put on those who do not support ETH.

"Can we eliminate the spaceship hypothesis in any rigorous scientific manner? Logically one might think of two approaches: we must show in each and every instance ever reported that the object was not an extraterrestrial spaceship, or we must show by some sort of scientific logic that it is impossible for extraterrestrial beings to visit us." Dr. Frank B. Salisbury[24].

`Perceptions' note: neither `proof' has ever been established, instead, suppression of reports and of facts seems to have been the order of the day since c. 1950.

Here's the very last time reports were obtained from professional astronomers - but only by fellow astronomer J Allen Hynek presenting himself as willing to "chat - off the record".

Their new, and increasing reluctance to talk was presumably due to fear of official `punishments'.

The testimony is in a report from Dr Hynek written (for the USAF) in Aug 1952 at: or
Pages 958 to maybe 980

Check for the reason for all this interest.

Looking for an explanation for 60 years of lies; maybe gov't ordered military lies and scientists' lies.

[new window]

Cover-up Situation

Early Truth


[new window]
[ Google ]

Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?

Visit W3Schools
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor


struggling editor ?



broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson

this page

Share This