PRESENT DAY

when no-one's honest

SUBJECT LINE and DATE / TIME ORDER - SO LATEST ARE USUALLY LOWER

From: Ray Dickenson
To: UFO UpDates
Subject: What should we expect now?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:27:27 -0000

After doing the probability check for intelligent life's numbers in the universe - which turns out to be uncountable billions - (below)
- think it's time to look at a similar probability check for the types of aliens we should expect.

In last two or three years, scientists have been shocked to find that stars & galaxies existed very early after the (putative) big bang. Not only that, the GRB evidence acquired in this last year shows those stars (and maybe even galactic centers) were going through explosive cycles much like today's. Which means that organic materials (including `dust & rocks' from which new stars and their planets are made) were available from maybe 14 billion years ago - which almost certainly means life was possible from then on.

See-
whyfiles.org/197dark_energy_old_gal/
"astonishingly distant galaxies"

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050920081931.htm
"Star Death Beacon At The Edge Of The Universe"

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050913074837.htm
"Most Distant Explosion Detected, Smashes Previous Record"

So there's not only probably billions of intelligent life-forms around but, importantly, some are maybe dating from near the beginning of the universe. How can they all be differentiated?

Let's try -
i) beings which haven't discovered interstellar travel - dominated by biology, by their `feed & breed' imperatives - which are destructive in the long-term while planet-bound; so we can expect the majority to self-annihilate before graduating to next stage;

ii) beings which can travel between stars - maybe still partly dominated by biology; in which case they'll still be 50% to 99% dangerous to themselves and others until they graduate to next stage;

iii) beings which don't need to travel - they can control not only their own bodies (and consciousness) but also all stellar / galactic engineering necessary for their purposes - see John D Barrow writing in `Impossibility - the limits of science and the science of limits' - "Ultimately, we could imagine a type `omega' civilization, which could manipulate the entire Universe (and even other universes)".

Note: the `types' above are approximate and will actually shade into (overlap) each other; Barrow and other folk have made smaller graduations / more stages but, as this is for strategic purposes, we'll keep it minimal.

So, just now we're a type (i) and facing likely self-annihilation - what types should we expect to be visiting us? Right - only early or medium type (ii)s, still wanting biology, DNA, artifacts, perhaps even raw materials. (That's not likely for the more advanced ones as raw materials are available more cheaply in deep space).

But none of the above would stop type (iii)s - who might have a massive umpteen billion year history (also see below) and therefore imponderable motives and curiosities - from using their technological or mental abilities to observe us, or even to intercede by communicating directly with human groups or individuals. For what purpose, we really can't imagine - except in simpler human terms of curiosity, or even pity.

BTW - There's a more mind-boggling addition to be made to those calculations: Our yard-stick for measuring the Universe and its age might be slightly wrong, or even a lot wrong: see

"The universe could be 15 percent bigger than scientists figure."
http://www.whyfiles.org/shorties/212size_universe/

"Halton Arp in `Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science'"
http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html

In fact, if Arp's and others' work prevails, the real age of the universe might be (effectively) infinite.

Which would enormously amplify all those differences above.

Cheers
Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson < Xoriginal messageX >
To: UFO UpDates
Subject: End of Vanity?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 02:17:34 -0000

Hello List,
Can we examine some assumptions, evidence, and (maybe) logical conclusions?

(a) that we can see `Reality' - a view held by the majority even now, though some like Plato (his `Cave Allegory') had suspicions; now evidence from mid-20th Century `quantum' science says it's not true; this assumption is only supported by human vanity;

(b) that humankind is special, maybe unique (and therefore alone), various atavists even cling to the word "chosen"; no evidence exists for this; this assumption is only supported by human vanity;

(c) that, if our surrounding are `normal' - as majority also feels, despite contradiction with (b) - then we should expect that, in line with `Mediocrity Principle', the universe is populated by uncountable billions of quasi-human beings, on quasi-Earth planets, in quasi-solar systems, in quasi-Milky Way galaxies; all evidence suggests this; this assumption is only opposed by human vanity;

(d) that, as (b) and (c) cannot both be correct, probability says we are surrounded by many alien intelligent life-forms, approximately one third of which are considerably in advance of us and are also probably more logical beings - i.e. they can see `Reality' in more useful ways than we can; this assumption is only opposed by human vanity;

(e) that therefore we are probably seen and watched, in a sort of goldfish bowl, by billions of advanced life-forms, maybe many more types than there are individual humans on Earth, and that our blind-folded existence (ruled by human vanity) is probably regarded by them with derision / contempt / pity; this assumption is only opposed by human vanity.

It can be claimed that all waste, injustice, war, pollution, global warming etc. was / is / will be ultimately caused by human vanity; and evidence is mounting that we are on a collision course with at least two probable causes of extinction - planetary toxification and / or catastrophic impact(s).

So it looks like we'll be forced to put aside human vanity and face `Reality', one way or the other. If only for a brief second or two. Maybe pretty soon.

Afterword - thought I'd logicked myself out on a limb last night, after writing all above - until today read Yakov Samuel asking much the same questions in `The Canadian', in a maybe more political piece entitled "Do Extra-terrestrials Exist?" - thanks to `The Daily Grail'.

Cheers
Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: UFO UpDates
Subject: What's Missing In UFO/Entity Situation?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:51:26 -0000

Hello List,
The problem with analyses of `the UFO/Entity situation' is that folk take positions, with others fancying a slightly different but exclusive view. That means each side spends time denying others' evidence, instead of trying to improve all evidence collection.

So let's step back as far as we can, to the question `are causes needed anyway?' - the two possible answers show a big gulf in society (maybe moving `our way' slightly now). Well, you can't cross a gulf in small logical steps so let's leap across with a tentative hypothesis - `that causes are needed because evidence and testimony is so abundant'.

[And from here on let's adopt a fairly obvious axiom - that proven GovMil cover-ups are evidence of `something', just as a radioactive footprint would be.]

To one side we see straight physical corporeality - but there's a disturbing factor in all extensive cases (where enough detail is visible). That is, it's never possible to resolve the facts into a totally understandable path or scenario: there are gaps of logical motivation or of physical `impossibility' in testimony.

The other way, it's a fog of non-corporeality: shape-shifting, disappearances, disembodied voices, altered time - which could plausibly be called `subjective' or `impossible' phenomena. Again there is no reasonable path or scenario that fits the entirety, and partial matches are apparently absurd.

Let's consider that - as a possible common factor of both the corporeal and non-corporeal evidence. Where in the human experience do we find areas abounding with `facts' (and self-promoting opinions masquerading as theory) but without any sure ground underfoot?

Right - `quantum physics' and `psychology' - which are mirror images of each other: the former can make sure and accurate predictions without any `sensible' explanation; the latter overflows with confident explanation but has not one case, so far as I know, of accurate prediction. Officially, in both of these `sciences', there has been no real advance, beyond the accumulation of data and case-histories, for half a century or more.

Yet we know that GovMil has been playing with `advanced propulsion' (and more) for some decades, and, more interestingly, with `telepathy' - `mind control' for approximately same time - and seems to be able to justify spending millions, maybe billions on these areas. Areas where publicly we are told there is nothing happening - no advances.

Is this coincidence? Is it further coincidence that all of these abnormal disjunctures seem to have their origin around a half century ago?

Ask yourself these questions -
#1 - would GovMil want real advances in physics, or more powerful weapons?
#2 - would GovMil want real advances in psychology, or mind-control?
#3 - did GovMil see a potential source of any of these, starting about half a century ago?

To find out, and knowing the first rule of GovMil is - "Never let people know the truth" - we have to ask `what has GovMil spent a lot of time, trouble and money on - without acknowledgement or admission'? Link to Project Grudge ('47); and Robertson Panel ('53); their wording stresses; and all later consequences.

Yup - `Executive' agencies of GovMil have been heavily and unaccountably into UFO/Entity cover-ups, flaps, complex fake disclosure hoaxes, often followed by equally complex (and fake) debunkings. So much so that it still seems dangerous to inquire too closely into the intrigue, corruption and possible assassinations caused by the activities - even past activities dating back say fifty or so years.

Remembering our axiom, it seems fairly clear that question #3 can and maybe should be answered "yes".

Not only that, the two oddities - the `unexplainables' in UFO/Entity evidence and the equally strange `gaps' in our human sciences could also fit together like a belt buckle. So is one the cause of the other? I.e. - can (some of) the UFO/Entities control physicality beyond our science and prevent our detecting them consistently? - OR - can (some of) the UFO/Entities control our mentality, and prevent our perceiving them consistently?

Which brings us back around to GovMil suppression of UFO/Entity evidence, and probable suppression of physics & psychology evidence. Link to criminalization of UFO reporting by military personnel; criminalization of civilian contact with UFOs or Entities; (both illogically accompanied by constant denial of existence of UFO/Entities); known `experiments' with mind-control (ongoing?).

Looks like a vicious circle, one with walls constructed by GovMil. Why say that?

Well, significantly, all reported contacts with UFO/Entities have been with ordinary folk. Indeed this has been a source of criticism of the evidence - "Why should they always want to talk to Joe Soap - why not land on the White House lawn?" - ad-nauseum.

But what could it really indicate? Most likely - that some idea of ordinary folk is what they are so far missing.

Cheers
Ray D

From: Robert Morningstar
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: M* Reply: UFO UpDate: Re: Incident At RAF Binbrook 09-08-70

>From: Ray Dickenson
>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:31:04 -0000

>> From: Nick Pope
>>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:09:43 -0000

>>>From: Ray Dickenson
>>>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:14:11 -0000

>>>From a previous post
www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/sep/m06-017.shtml
>>>you might note a distrust of 'records' of any kind, except
>>>those kept without any thought of publication - maybe like
>>>Samuel Pepys' Diary.

>>You can take my statement as fact, or regard it as government
>>lies and disinformation. The choice is yours. But I can't win
>>here, can I? Because if anyone truly believes I'm part of an
>>official cover-up, my denial is hardly going to make such
>>conspiracy theorists say "Oh, alright. Thanks for clearing that
>>up. I accept now that this was a tragic accident, and nothing
>>more".

>Hello Nick,
>That's not where I'm coming from...
>Say someone was researching `business', to be truthful he would
>have to include illegal trading, like drugs etc - criminal
>business, and fraud - fake business.
>From that angle, and my own point of view, part of UFO phenomena
>is humans' interests and motivations - many of which we could
>call dishonest, deceptive and even downright oppressive,
>especially in many USA and South American cases.

>Some might say "the English do things differently", and so they do, but not necessarily more honestly.
>Cheers
Ray D

Touchee (Two Shay!)

I like you both fellows, Ray and Nick, but that was a bit "snooty" to single out just the USA and South America...

What about Botswana?

Robert

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:16:28 -0000
>Hello Robert,
>Heck, you're reading minds again.

>Several times, when roughly reviewing the UFO/ET situation, and
>coming to the conclusion that South American phenomena (and to
>lesser extent some in southern USA) are "of a different order",
>just haven't bothered to mention there seems to've been an
>admittedly small set of "aggressive" actions from UFOs/ETs
>(responding to _very_ aggressive behavior from white farmers -
>attacks by rifle fire etc) in southern Africa.

>Whereas in Madagascar [where French rule was of a different
>nature - although exploitative it wasn't aimed at permanent
>possession] the `visitor' behavior was different also.

>It could be that `aggressive' visitor responses are only that -
>only responding to what we might call "a particular colonial
>attitude of violence". Alternatively, there's a different race (or)
>type of `visitor' going to those parts.
> Regards
>Ray

From: Robert Morningstar
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:37:24 -0800 (PST)

The ET behavior that you describe [above], I call "mind mirroring"...

Perhaps, it is like their "Golden Rule", ie "Do unto humans as they would do unto you... but get the job done."

So, they cooperate with "cooperative and compliant" clients and may overwhelm and overbear the "bearish ones."

I think that may be the reasons for some of the more violent incidents that occur when ETs encounter military police or hunters during close encounters.

I really got a kick out of the message I sent to you and Nick. My psychic sense kicks in at the most unexpected times. I had a good chuckle when I saw my hands type:
"What about Botswana?"
It was on the screen before my conscious mind realized it.

Robert

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:58:04 -0000
Subject: Re: 1997 Art Bell Interview With Col. Corso

>From: Richard Hall
>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:26:22 +0000
>Subject: Re: 1997 Art Bell Interview With Col. Corso

>>From: Ed Gehrman
>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:36:17 -0800
>>Subject: Re: 1997 Art Bell Interview With Col. Corso

>>>From: Ray Dickenson
>>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:28:46 -0000
>>>Subject: 1997 Art Bell Interview With Col. Corso

>>>Thanks to ICIS for sending this Google.ca URL, don't know how
>>>long it'll stay active:

>>>http://tinyurl.com/yxwxv8
[Art Bell's videoed interview with Colonel Philip Corso]
>>Thanks for bringing this interview to our attention.

>>Mike Kemp, who had little prior knowledge of Corso and no
>>opinion about his veracity, conducted a Voice Stress Analysis
>>of this entire program.

>>www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m16-020.shtml

>So here we go again about Corso! I strongly suggest that anyone
>who thinks Corso was credible read through the UFO UpDates
>Archives to see what the strong consensus of the comparatively
>scholarly UFO community is on that point.

Thanks Ed,
While that voice stress analysis is something we all do subconsciously when listening to folk testify, that formal analysis from Mike Kemp was instructive and interesting. It backed up my own impressions of all three men's voices.

Thanks Richard,
but I'd rather hear all the testimony and get an idea of what's really being discussed, before listening to opinions of `experts'. From what we see around the world they all have their own agendas, no matter how academic their backgrounds.

Incidentally, Mike Kemp's mention of a particular pair of `intro-stress points' confirmed an impression that many might get from the interview and which came over fairly clearly to me.

That in his (distinguished) mixed career of real battle and intelligence analysis and planning, Corso, maybe due to his prolonged active service experiences, and knowledge of other agencies' double dealing with many people's lives, inevitably swung to what we might call the Eisenhower school of thought. Think we saw that in his concern for the `hoodwinked' families of abandoned POWs, plus some other subjects arising. ^{ref-2 & ref-3}

The `opposition' was and is, organized, ruthless and deadly (which probably accounts for Corso's intro-stress at [the word] "CIA"), and I got the further impression that some, like Von Braun - maybe playing the main-chance, oscillated between the two camps. ^ref-4

Cheers
Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
Subject: Types of entities?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:21:27 -0000

Hello List,
Would anyone care to recommend a breakdown of `entities' encountered, classified by type? And maybe giving a geographical spread?

I've recently been reminded of one particular type - smallish creatures described as biological and living but also variously said to be `incomplete' `damaged' `with added organs' or `missing facial organs', also`distressed' or `bereft'.

Have the impression that these are geographically limited, most reports I've read seem to be from Latin America, with one or two from Italy and perhaps a few in Russia.

There's a scenario - which I think is too complex for _all_ isolated &/or naive witnesses to anticipate and contrive - that these are biologically engineered (`uplifted') entities used as agents, pilots, etc., and that they had been lost (or abandoned) after getting damaged or sick, or after their craft has gone down.

Examples are Varghina-types (and chupacabras) in South America and Puerto Rico, and the Italian [ Filiberto Caponi ] case described by Tim Good (which was apparently followed or preceded by a brief sighting of similar but flying (undamaged) entity in another, nearby, region of Italy).

[ Recent reminder was Corso's weary but dogged repetition that he thought what he saw was not a humanoid but a `thing' - a living part of the craft. ]

That scenario has implications:-
1) we're being visited, observed by one or more races capable of quite skilled biological construction - which could be much cheaper than hi-tech;
2) they're not necessarily all that far ahead of us technology-wise, we could forecast similar capabilities in one or two hundred years or so - if we chose that path.

And that at least one of those races don't seem very compassionate towards their own living creations.

Cheers
Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
Subject: Is this where we are?
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:46:31 -0000

Hi List,
Recently reviewed our apparent position, here it is - for comment

Our expertise

1 - Claims about alien motivations, objectives etc.

Situation - We're a bunch of crazy bald chimpanzees, wasting resources crazily, killing each other crazily - collectively in crazy wars, individually by crazily driving crazy `vehicles'. Because that's our crazy chimpanzee mentality.

Are we in a position to understand alien beings of whatever stage of development?

Quote - "There is no evidence - and the best psychologists agree - that we can take ourselves even a tiny bit out of our individual grooves. ... The closest any human can come to feeling like [an alien] is to feel like a person who is trying very hard to feel like they imagine [an alien] must feel."
[pp 55, 56. `Evolving the Alien' Profs Cohen & Stewart]

To paraphrase the professors again - `They don't value our money or power, and aren't interested in our sex-games'.
However, they almost surely have their own valued objectives, and their own compulsions:- none of which we could ever understand or even recognize - unless they choose to tell us about them.

2 - Assertions about possible or impossible attributes / abilities of aliens.

Situation - From a preponderance of ancient and modern reports some groups of `visitors' have some or all of the following:- 1) inertia-less drive [falling-leaf motion, `impossible' accelerations - speed / direction]; 2) sulfur(-iron?) metabolism [rotten-eggs & brimstone smells]; 3) plasma or entanglement or holographic physics [morphing / combining of craft - disappearing individuals]; 4) ability to make humans `see' them as iconic forms [`Grays' (mainly in US?), `Nordics' in EU, `demons' elsewhere]; 5) F.T.L travel [obviously].

Can we judge the feasibility of any these attributes?

Not at all. We don't know any `absolute laws of physics' and therefore any of our claimed knowledge might easily be contradicted. As A.R Wallace said - "there is no law of nature yet known to us but may be apparently contravened by the action of more recondite laws or forces".

3 - Conclusion?

All theoretical assertions about alien visitors are almost certain to be mistaken or groundless - a waste of time. All we can do is observe phenomena and take notes.

It would be great if things were otherwise - but I don't think they are.

Cheers
Ray D

2008 UPDATE
From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:05:33 -0000
Subject: Could Life Be Older Than Stars & Planets?

Hello List,

Folk trying to work out probabilities of life in our galaxy (or in the universe) often refer to the Drake Equation, which uses the numbers (and ages) of planets in the Milky Way as basic factors.

Why only look at planets? Because, as Gribbin et al show, life needs an energy gradient - from hot to cold say, to power the 'work' of living. Being close to a star, organic molecules on a planet can use the star's radiation to start 'self-organizing' to greater complexity and 'life'. So on Earth we can find a chain: starting with photo-synthesis > plants > herbivores > carnivores & omnivores (us).

Is there an energy source other than stars? Yes. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), sometimes called the relic radiation from a putative 'big bang'. Yet it doesn't seem promising, for two reasons - i) it's only about 3 degrees above absolute zero and ii) it's all around, so where's the gradient?

i) The temperature _is_ only 3 degrees now. But going back in time, it was hotter and hotter.
ii) And the gradient? In deep space we find huge clouds of molecules, many of them organic molecules. The bigger the cloud the colder its interior will be, because outer layers will absorb the radiation - so there's your gradient. And it's an enclosed system - the energy gradient is internal to the cloud.

Therefore clouds of molecules have had the energy input to do the 'work' of self-organizing. We could say that's obvious because some clouds' molecules are very complex - nucleic acids (predecessors of DNA) have been detected. And the further back you go, the more energy such clouds were receiving.

How far back? Mainstream scientists who subscribe to the 'redshift hypothesis' say the visible universe is only 15-20 billion yrs old - although other scientists (Arp et al) say it could be much older (and bigger). That mainstream posits an evolution from primitive stars in galactic clouds of dust to regular stars (several main 'generations') in regular galaxies. Their problem is: as far as they can see, even 13 to 14 billion light-years away (that's distance _and_ time), there's only 'regular' galaxies to be seen.

So, if you believe the mainstream anyway, life could have evolved in deep space as far back as c. 14 - 19 billion years ago. If you examine other evidence (maybe check Halton Arp's 'Seeing Red') then first life in the universe could be much, much older.

Interstellar or deep-space forms of life, amorphous yet energetic, would certainly seem to match up with some of the things - "high pulsers" - that we see in NASA satellite and shuttle footages. Try 'video NASA UFO' in Google.

Cheers
Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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: http://tinyurl.com/2qeyp3

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: http://tinyurl.com/3a3q3q

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: http://tinyurl.com/2p53kg

Now we know.

Cheers
Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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 (greensearch.txt) 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.

Cheers
Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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.
<snip>
> 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?
<snip>

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 couple of shorts) -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhbuFlpaIGY (7 mins)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMcl5eXGW8 (8 mins)

- 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?

Cheers
Ray D

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

Hello List

In the intro to 'Best UFO documentary'
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qns2W6CVpPw
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"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6HcEbfIhQ0
and some connected revealings of corruption - at
tinyurl.com/yqf4r6 (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?

Cheers
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 virtuallystrange.net
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.

Cheers
Ray D

[ here's a (maybe shaky) analysis ]

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel#Formal_meetings - looked at them and said "They can't be unidentified, therefore they must be birds". Here's the video:
youtube.com/watch?v=X8DFQe6tgmo

And in 2006 Santiago Garza & Jaime Maussan presented several films to conference, taken around Mexico City during mass sightings of exactly the same formations - here's one video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuUi_FjKfrY

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 the end of this first video and beginning of second -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDBpE0OaXg0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRLl38p2YnU

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.

Cheers
Ray

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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

<snip>
>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.
<snip>

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.txt; inertfey.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 down 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.

Cheers
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
www.cosmology.info/

The Big Bang Never Happened: ~
www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Happened-Refutation/dp/067974049X

Big Bang Breakdown by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309

Scientists question our understanding of the universe
www.physorg.com/news93793516.html

Tom Van Flandern's "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang"
metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

WHAT if the big bang never happened? Marcus Chown
www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/bigbang22.txt

re: `black holes'

Chapline: black holes don't exist
motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/chapline-black-holes-dont-exist.html

Black holes don't exist, says BARC scientist
www.rediff.com/news/2000/dec/22barc.htm

Black Holes Don't Exist, Say Physicists
blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/black-holes-don.html
---
Here's a follow-on -

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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."

www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/09/1044725671904.html

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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 http://tinyurl.com/5xb7px - 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 a 9 min Youtube short of Martyn explaining how he did it www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2UL-VmJwwc 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.

Ray

The full video is called the `Smoking Gun'

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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 - Early Warning / NORAD - where he explained why he'd normally deny the existence of anomalous radar returns, "don't discuss them", and how two B52's got diverted around three UFOs to prevent an accidental 'meeting'.

It's at www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zh4M9201-k at 4 min 31 sec mark.

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 virtuallystrange.net
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

Speculation:
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.

Cheers
Ray D

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

Ray,
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.
Steve

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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'.

Cheers
Ray

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,
<snip>
Stuart Miller
Alien Worlds magazine
http://www.alienworldsmag.com

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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.

Cheers
Ray D

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

<snip>
>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 virtuallystrange.net
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.

Cheers
Ray

>From: Stuart Miller
>To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
>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
>otherwise.

From: Ray Dickenson
To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
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 - we 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. It's about 2 mins into this 9 minute video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=inO1UCNqXTA

Listers might've seen, in the last year or so, video and text of Shostak 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.

Cheers
Ray D

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

>Source: Robert Barrow's Blog
>http://robert-barrow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html

>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, Study Finds" - at:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070911111852.htm

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 just 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.

Cheers
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:
http://tinyurl.com/fjx9c or
www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB1-958
Pages 958 to maybe 980

Check www.perceptions.couk.com/exosci.html#nonE 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]