Whistleblower claims US govt has non-human craft

Post Reply New Topic

Signals?
Signs?
footprints?

Do they want us to see them? do they blunder into our space? or more likely they don't care

Actually the first (alleged) true photo of aliens observing the US at war was at the outset following Pearl harbour in 1941 and the craft were fired upon mistaken for Japanese zeroes flying over Los Angeles (the lights in the photo below were captured on radar as well but turned to be foos)


https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 7539b99d16

This is the kind of stuff Jacques Vallee has been on top of.

Going back to crop circles for examples. There's a blend between hoaxers with boards and crops that seem to have been zapped with microwave radiation at their stems to where they lay down without breaking and have I think it was iron nodules where certain trace minerals pooled up under the heat. With those people claimed to see lights in the sky over the field zapping the crops. That again, to me, almost looks like evidence for the ecosystem having a kind of nervous system, though made of what? Seems to be made of sentient life as well as whatever else might have consciousness that we don't know about at this point (our ability for testing that is strictly 'I know it when I see it' at this point). That's where I also think George P Hansen's discussion of antistructure and liminality sort of points at the same thing, ie. homeostatic feedback loops in the Earth's overall system.

Hansen's work has been unfortunately labelled paranormal/parapsychology.

But some of this theory should go back to the limits of our own knowledge of physics. There are parallel research that is on the cusp of understanding the mathematical likelihood (odds/probability) of inter-dimensional conduits in areas of space that might permit physical objects or entities to move or phase into (and out of) our dimension.

Now, going to crop circles, if there are entities/object that leave signs of their presence (for whatever reason/motive) then it makes sense given we know that sound and magnetic waves can create patterns in sand so if an object emits electromagnetic waves and moves across a crop field then it could (where it emerges from a portal?) do something similar and create complex geometric shapes leaving the tell tale footprint heat/radiation signature, iron nodules, and the uniform bent stems that form almost folded patterns which (as Stanford University Engineering students demonstrated) are impassible to replicate using known technology. Of course as some people have postulated, the source of this energy could be some type of plasma we can't detect that is related to ball lightning (but that is outside the scope of my knowledge or interests).

The hoaxers have been highly successful in debunking crop circles (at least the phenomena has been dropped by the media) which translates to a loss of public interest from about the late 1990s. Ultimately people don't want to think too critically about anomalous phenomena.and bend whichever way the prevailing winds blow. The whole spectrum of the paranormal (whether Hansen or Vallee) requires some courage to come public with, investment in time/effort and money. Bit the social cost is too high. For many in "respectable" professions there is a risk of no longer being take seriously by your colleagues or peers.

I agree with stepping cautiously and applying the scientific method (where applicable). But sometimes where an anomalous phenomena is not explained by known science then we may have to accept we have reached the limits or frontiers of the body of knowledge that can explain aforementioned phenomena and open the door to other alternative possibilities.

Having an alternative theory that is untestable remains unscientific according to the scientific method (I know this better than most). But just because we can't test a hypothesis does not invalidate it's existence nor shut down curiosity to explore and investigate.

Well... his creds are several decades in paranormal research labs and his book is about the strange consistencies and oddities of both the industry and what they're studying so I'd say the shoe fits.


This is where I'm not entirely sure that my own view even is properly interdimensional, something more like considering that a rubberband ball of egregores or canopies of group minds (Ned Block's 'China Minds' brought to life) have the capacity to do this. This is where I don't know if these beings are autonomously real or whether they're just what these larger egregores show us in a top-down fashion.


The hoaxers are also a strange case where some group of hippies can try manifesting a crop circle - and they do! They can draw both the real thing and hoaxers!

This is where I think Hansen's book is still very useful as he talks about both paranormal proponents and all-in debunkers spiraling the same attractor and having their faculties bent in the same ways.


The trick is trying to triage such ideas on their own terms and by their own structures. I don't think that's impossible, it's just that it takes going over the logic very meticulously and trying to ask yourself if there are any facts that could falsify core pillars of the idea. I prefer actually to destroy my own theories and ideas if they can be wrecked by high-quality criticism and I try to find that on my own since it's difficult to find many people who really look into this stuff.

There's a problem with the 'liminal' as well (something I've seen plenty but something that Hansen also touched on) - people are genuinely fetishized toward it and allergic to it at the same time. People who style themselves (have their status assessments pin to the semblance of) serious thinkers run like hell from anything that seems 'odd', and on the opposite poll you get the escapists who just want it for entertainment or the hippy-dippies who want to 'peace love dope' it. Really rare is the person who actually tries to stoically comb through the details and see what they can find.

One of the strangest things to me is just how tight the clusters in human behavior are and how the race to conform as much as possible for conformity's sake (such as proving you're normal, ergo have good genes ergo are fit to procreate) is such a narrow and stereotyped thing that you dare not think a thought outside of very narrow channels, channels that are actually much narrower than even what the state of human knowledge seems to justify. We still act like we don't even believe in emergence (to which I'm really glad that people like Michael Levin, Karl Friston, and Chris Fields are beinging top-down causation and fractal levels of formation back to biology and neuroscience). That said I don't think we're built to think clearly, rather we're built to lick our finger, stick it in the air, and figure out which way of thinking is most popular, most likely to raise our status, most likely to improve mating probabilities, etc., because that's what shakes out over generations. It seems to give further credence that there's a lot to what Donald Hoffman suggests often that 'fitness beats truth'.

I'm not familiar with Hansen's specific work but I am familiar with hoaxes. When Project Blue Book was being conducted by the US airforce in the 1950s there was an over-use of the word "hoax" to label many cases in addition to absurd claims that normal people could not tell the difference between a flying saucer and a flock of birds, car lights, the planet venus, a star or worst of all swamp gas. This created a atmosphere of stigma over even saying you saw a unidentified anomalous object which one can be subject to social stigma/ridicule. e.g. he/she/they made the whole thing up for attention.

A simple illustration of how the stigma of UFOs can cause people to change their stories happened in 1966 is in Westall a suburb here in Melbourne where 200 + school kids and teachers witnessed a flying saucer actually land in their school. What happened afterward is one of the most famous cases of UFOs in history but I'll skip to the relevant bit. A cover up of the event ensued where the local government claimed to have no knowledge of the event. The media derided the children saying what they witnessed was a plane or balloon. Subsequently despite initially sticking to their story as the kids got older they completely avoided ever talking about the event for fear of being socially shunned or not getting a job. What was ridiculous was the idea 200+ kids in a school acted in unison to hatch a plot to make up a story over something that would entirely unbelievable. The obvious point missed by the media is that Westall lies next door to Moorabin airport which has aircraft flying over the school every 15 min. The idea even one child could not tell the difference by a low flying plane and an actual disc/saucer landing on school grounds is silly, The idea that 200+ kids could not tell the difference is entirely absurd,

Oh this is an easy one. Social psychology/group think/conformity is in our genes. This type of group think behaviour served our ancestors well when faced with predators on the African savannah or facing enemies competing over scarce resources. We can witness group think when you watch a Trump rally or conversely a group of scientists agreeing with each other and reaching consensus that a concept or theory must be A because it would be too difficult or too much effort or it might upset the apple cart if they consider concept or theory B.

I've always wondered what the interest would be in treating it that way. For example - was the thought that it could push us farther, back during the Cold War, to nuclear midnight? Was it a fear that all Lord of the Flies would break loose? What would be the most cynical motive that actually empowers or rewards having a message over the public that says effectively 'If you see a UFO - you might want to water your whiskey a bit'? I'm missing what specifically that ontologically takes away from people, the only thing I could kind of see is planting people down deeper in capitalism and keeping their minds off of topics that might cause them to spend less. That's a bit abstract though, not impossible but just a little far-fetched.

I think you will find through out history that changing accepted paradigms takes a lot of effort and considerable sacrifice. Many independent and critical thinkers have found themselves tied to a burning stake or placed in front of a firing squad. I'm reminded of the famous female Greek astronomer Hypatia who was murdered by christians because she dared to make claims of the orbits of planets. No doubt the derision scientists like Carl Sagan had for people who spoke about UFOs carries a similar sentiment.

On the question of stigma there is a general reticence to report actual experiences. For example a Roper survey done 10 years ago found 1 in 6 Americans reported being abducted by aliens. When you think about the actual number is like much higher because a person who holds some position of responsibility would never dare endanger their position or reputation by saying little grey aliens abducted them and conducted experiments which might/might not have involved hybrid alien children. That's a one way trip to the "looney bin".

I find it really hard to relate to.

Part of what it might be what helped make my own mind tick the way it does:

1) Catholic upbringing.

2) Parents with very sincere values who weren't and aren't gametheorhetic, ie. they were like the lovely old couple even in their 30's and 40's.

3) All the National Geographics my parents had, playing classical for me as a kid, feeding my science interests.

4) Those good ol' 80's children's cartoons and Disney movies 40's and onward with arguably Masonic moral themes (profoundly liberal humanist at a minimum) in that they've got all these Hero's Journey elements and valorize the heck out of integrity and love and pound home 'Do the right thing' in a very emotionally compelling way - especially when you're 6 or 7.


When I listen to Manly P Hall he's pretty much that fusion caricatured. Something he said in a taped lecture, I'm paraphrasing as well as I can, was about discerning between honesty and integrity. He said something to the effect that the honest person gives a dime back for an exchange of a dollar for a 90 cent product because it's the 'right thing to do'. The person with integrity gives a dime back because $1.00 - $0.90 = $0.10. That way of thinking, to me, is almost exclusively autistic. That's pretty much like telling the majority of people on the spectrum that they have sterling integrity.

That's where it's too far beyond my thinking, maybe to my detriment (looking at my financial life I can tell I was missing key strategies, just by lack of exposure, through my 20's and 30's), I can't imagine outsourcing the clarity of my thinking in the 'lick my finger, stick it in the air, and see which opinion has the most followers or gives me the most power' way. It's just not a way to live life with any love or honesty toward yourself. To me that's specifically Darwinian and to pay attention to that first is to really throw truth out the window for pragmatism. It's like 'something' or 'someone' is REALLY successful, they're just not YOU - AND... you get to never know you!

It's a massive cock-up that the game theory of our society is that churlishly myopic. Typically this is the kind of thing where royals would dwell on it, dwell on it's mechanics, and see how they could tinker with religious dogma or what new thing they should execute people for. Christianity pounded on 'basic b***h' mentality of the men and women who only saw money, sex, and food at the time (along with careerist and management class leadership), it seems like we were able to cook up some pretty profound moral tales even a few decades ago as well as great music and for some reason we're thinking that erasing standards makes us happy. Why does anyone believe this?

People buy into gamification because capitalism promotes competition which is supposed to maintain standards, quality and overall societal improvement. In the turn of the 20th century nearly all western governments bought into Darwinian principles in terms of the society to survive we must propagate our strongest, smartest which isn't just individual but also empowering the nation states. Neo-capitalist leaders perpetuated neo-Darwinian philosophies like Toynebeeism which is the bedrock of conservative politics.

So greed is not just good, it's also necessary. Of course some in out respective countries think you can have it all. But you can't. There is a lot of compromise and dissonance.

I remember David Sloan Wilson sharing some kind of chicken-breeding experiment in an interview with Nate Hagans that showed that if egg-laying productivity was the made the core metric of breeding that the top-producing hens went a bit psychopathic and that it actually crashed overall productivity? Here's a link to an overview of that experiment:

https://www.wkms.org/science/2018-10-08 ... -evolution

Selective breeding - pedigrees creates genetic problems. You only have to look at show dogs.

I am hoping that now we have claims there are alien pilots there may even be credence to the long held claim about alien-human hybrids. These so called "star children" are reported to not talk but take on human and grey characteristics.

Perhaps the greys are planning to introduce these star kids into earth in the near future? might improve our own gene pool.

The evolution of Homo sapiens is an example of "punctuated equilibrium". The fossil record doesn't really explain our biological/evolutionary divergence from chimpanzees. Perhaps ape-alien hybridisation could explain our hairless bodies.

It's more fair to think of chimps as diverging from us, rather than the other way around.

The LCA of chimps and humans walked upright, knuckle-walking is a derived trait.

One shouldn't expect fossils to provide insight on the shift between anatomically modern H. sapiens and behaviourally modern H. sapiens, considering that no significant physical changes are associated with that shift.

Hairlessness and dark skin are both long-held traits, dark skin helps compensate for hair no longer blocking the sun.

Lots of rational and far-less outlandish explanations exist, the answer is never gonna be:

Sheer accident that one hairless ape became hyper-intelligent to the point they took over this planet like a virus?

I'm not so convinced we're as hyper-intelligent as we'd like to believe ourselves to be (among things).

We're much better at standing on the shoulders of those who came before us (so to speak) than most other animals. We don't need extraordinary explanations when ordinary ones are far more reasonable.

Our current society and it's achievements are built atop hundreds of previous generations of achievements. We've had a lot of time to get where we are, how and why are aliens needed to explain any of it?