Hey Billy, remember the academic paper I mentioned a while back by Prof. Alexander Wong (also Dr. Daniel Stubbings and Sophie Ali)? I had told Prof. Wong my experience I told you of. Out now at the Journal of Scientific Exploration! Said I'd let you know. Interesting "Highlights" summary.
"A new study finds that witnesses of unidentified anomalous phenomena in the general
public are neither neurotic nor especially vulnerable to perceptual or cognitive errors,
and their reports often parallel those of military witnesses"
It's generally what he said to me last year but I didn't want to say until published, experiencers are "normal people".
Neuroscience tells us the left hemisphere is good at counting the dots but that it takes the right hemisphere to grasp the meaning of the dots. The left hemisphere also is specialized in its ability to rearrange the dots in order to win by detaching them from the context of the whole. Needing to win has led us to ignore our sense of the whole. Grasping the possibility that the universe is alive with numerous intelligent sentient beings from elsewhere(s) requires a lot of right hemisphere input. But if winning is everything, then using ad hominin tactics is the way to try to destroy the credibility of those whose experience and intuitions about the greater whole endanger those with a flat universe sense of reality.
I also somethings have the sense that we are being studied. So, are bets being taken about whether we will make it or not? The outcome to be studied for generations to come?
I think the interesting thing about SK is how did he get picked to head AARO in the first place? From all accounts I have read he was not a well liked fellow amongst his colleagues and was hard to get along with. Did this attitude follow him into AARO and was that the reason he got the job? As far as I know no one from AARO has commented. In any case, SK should be put now in the 'true debunkers' column and the focus should be on what the hell the rest of the AARO personnel (incl real scientist) think? Where is the evidence that formed the conclusions of the Report Vol I? In regards to the 'True Believers' and it's a 'Religion' there are of course some UFO type personages who could be put in that category. It goes with the territory of the subject. But those who seek evidence before coming to conclusions are many and becoming more of a larger group. That part seems to be under reported. Finally my take on the why we maybe 'sensing' more unaccounted for objects could be two fold. One, some of the objects could be newer class human spy drones maybe driven by AI tech. Two, the objects are are of non human origin and our newer tech sensors now have some ability to detect them better (as posted in Billy's article). But a third one also pops up in that as our drone tech gets better and better the NHI origin ones may now have a much better cover story to operate in (well if thinking like a human). The opposite of this was supposedly one of the cover stories used by the military in trying to hide their new spy plane flights (they are UFOs, folks). Whatever the case, our most advanced tech could be better a getting to the truth or just hiding it.
Re: fear and motivation. It's pretty clear that the grip has tightened in keeping the UFO story under control. If there was a fear meter for those in government, and those managed by it, it would probably read off the scale. It'd be interesting to know names and/or ranks of those turning the screws. In any event, it's always wise to bet on the house.
As expected, SK delivers on his disinterest in the subject and Billy delivers a precise accurate read about the people behind the scenes who have a lot more credibility and do have an interest.
I thought I would let you know about the C-sUAS program I have assisted with in my Army work. We are fielding "drone-detection and killing" devices across the DoD for critical installations. Why? Because with the increase in the amount of drones and their advances globally coupled with increasing incidents, we have a need to defend our perimeters. Drones are appearing more. Not all are necessarily drones either. We know that other means exist to spy on our locations. Balloons also work. UAP could be also at play.
Our recent SCU paper by Larry Hancock addresses the military sites for UAP incursions. I encourage reading this. Ryan Graves is thankfully addressing the flight safety issues when objects appear in our military perimeters, exercise areas and nuclear sites, something SK has a disinterest in.
It would be nice if the media was able to recognise the extremes on both sides, but reporters are no less fallible than everyone else.
If there are 'true believers' (whatever that actually means), then isn't it possible there are varying opinions on the probability of a current alien presence in our solar system (as well as disbelievers who consider the possibility to be zero)?
I recall reading of an 'old' NASA exercise to run an infra red scan of the asteroid belt for signs of artificial objects using the minerals as a resource. I could only find an article by M.D. Papagiannis who suggested exactly that in 1985. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-5462-5_66
If rational SETI-related scientists can consider this type of exercise, then why do some individuals (such as Kirkpatrick) seem unable to present a balanced overview of the subject to the public?
Anyone who considers such a possibility would look at the long history of UFOs and ask themselves 'could one of those instances represent an encounter with alien technology?'
Why is it that (when apparently necessary) the Pentagon manages to find individuals who would answer that question with a resounding 'No.'?
The Guardian has been a lost cause for quite a while now:
“British ‘watchdog’ journalists Mason and Cadwalladr unmasked as security state lapdogs - Events of the past few days suggest British journalism – the so-called Fourth Estate – is not what it purports to be: a watchdog monitoring the centers of state power. It is quite the opposite…”
Hey Billy, remember the academic paper I mentioned a while back by Prof. Alexander Wong (also Dr. Daniel Stubbings and Sophie Ali)? I had told Prof. Wong my experience I told you of. Out now at the Journal of Scientific Exploration! Said I'd let you know. Interesting "Highlights" summary.
"A new study finds that witnesses of unidentified anomalous phenomena in the general
public are neither neurotic nor especially vulnerable to perceptual or cognitive errors,
and their reports often parallel those of military witnesses"
It's generally what he said to me last year but I didn't want to say until published, experiencers are "normal people".
https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/issue/view/99
Alan
Neuroscience tells us the left hemisphere is good at counting the dots but that it takes the right hemisphere to grasp the meaning of the dots. The left hemisphere also is specialized in its ability to rearrange the dots in order to win by detaching them from the context of the whole. Needing to win has led us to ignore our sense of the whole. Grasping the possibility that the universe is alive with numerous intelligent sentient beings from elsewhere(s) requires a lot of right hemisphere input. But if winning is everything, then using ad hominin tactics is the way to try to destroy the credibility of those whose experience and intuitions about the greater whole endanger those with a flat universe sense of reality.
I also somethings have the sense that we are being studied. So, are bets being taken about whether we will make it or not? The outcome to be studied for generations to come?
My comment on the February 2024 AARO UAP report.
https://ufointel.wordpress.com/2024/04/10/my-comment-on-the-february-2024-aaro-uap-report/
Sean Kirkpatrick, have you read these U.S. Department of Energy UFO documents?
https://ufointel.wordpress.com/2024/04/07/u-s-government-ufo-documents/
Folks, Sean Kirkpatrick didn't mention this 35th annual Fleet Week UFO incident in his UAP report.
Not only is Sean Kirkpatrick a liar, he's also totally incompetent.
https://ufointel.wordpress.com/2024/04/03/ufo-video/
SK has never talked to Kevin Day.
https://x.com/kimberlyday369/status/1771227076751655321?s=46&t=bTiPH6NB__uL7cnuewKz9Q
Apropos anomalous underwater activity.
UFO/USO video footage in the BBC documentary film, "Profit, Pollution and Deception: USA's Largest Oil Spill | Deepwater Horizon."
UFO/USO at 13:03:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8zGFvzMMO9w
NOTE: I've reported on this case earlier. This documentary has better quality than the ENDEVR documentary.
The Guardian is 100% UK Deep State shill.
Billy, on 19 April 2023, Sean Kirkpatrick admitted that UFOs are real.
Sean Kirkpatrick (at 10:49):
“I want to underscore today, that only a small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that could reasonably be described as anomalous.”
https://ufointel.wordpress.com/2024/03/31/u-s-government-uap-ufo-hearing-video/
I think the interesting thing about SK is how did he get picked to head AARO in the first place? From all accounts I have read he was not a well liked fellow amongst his colleagues and was hard to get along with. Did this attitude follow him into AARO and was that the reason he got the job? As far as I know no one from AARO has commented. In any case, SK should be put now in the 'true debunkers' column and the focus should be on what the hell the rest of the AARO personnel (incl real scientist) think? Where is the evidence that formed the conclusions of the Report Vol I? In regards to the 'True Believers' and it's a 'Religion' there are of course some UFO type personages who could be put in that category. It goes with the territory of the subject. But those who seek evidence before coming to conclusions are many and becoming more of a larger group. That part seems to be under reported. Finally my take on the why we maybe 'sensing' more unaccounted for objects could be two fold. One, some of the objects could be newer class human spy drones maybe driven by AI tech. Two, the objects are are of non human origin and our newer tech sensors now have some ability to detect them better (as posted in Billy's article). But a third one also pops up in that as our drone tech gets better and better the NHI origin ones may now have a much better cover story to operate in (well if thinking like a human). The opposite of this was supposedly one of the cover stories used by the military in trying to hide their new spy plane flights (they are UFOs, folks). Whatever the case, our most advanced tech could be better a getting to the truth or just hiding it.
Re: fear and motivation. It's pretty clear that the grip has tightened in keeping the UFO story under control. If there was a fear meter for those in government, and those managed by it, it would probably read off the scale. It'd be interesting to know names and/or ranks of those turning the screws. In any event, it's always wise to bet on the house.
"small Unmanned Aircraft Systems"
This sets them up to classify actual UFO's as "drones".
While at the same time providing them cover for their own highly advanced Unmanned Aircraft Systems, like the tic-tacs.
As expected, SK delivers on his disinterest in the subject and Billy delivers a precise accurate read about the people behind the scenes who have a lot more credibility and do have an interest.
I thought I would let you know about the C-sUAS program I have assisted with in my Army work. We are fielding "drone-detection and killing" devices across the DoD for critical installations. Why? Because with the increase in the amount of drones and their advances globally coupled with increasing incidents, we have a need to defend our perimeters. Drones are appearing more. Not all are necessarily drones either. We know that other means exist to spy on our locations. Balloons also work. UAP could be also at play.
Our recent SCU paper by Larry Hancock addresses the military sites for UAP incursions. I encourage reading this. Ryan Graves is thankfully addressing the flight safety issues when objects appear in our military perimeters, exercise areas and nuclear sites, something SK has a disinterest in.
Thanks for helping us navigate the BS Billy.
It would be nice if the media was able to recognise the extremes on both sides, but reporters are no less fallible than everyone else.
If there are 'true believers' (whatever that actually means), then isn't it possible there are varying opinions on the probability of a current alien presence in our solar system (as well as disbelievers who consider the possibility to be zero)?
I recall reading of an 'old' NASA exercise to run an infra red scan of the asteroid belt for signs of artificial objects using the minerals as a resource. I could only find an article by M.D. Papagiannis who suggested exactly that in 1985. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-5462-5_66
If rational SETI-related scientists can consider this type of exercise, then why do some individuals (such as Kirkpatrick) seem unable to present a balanced overview of the subject to the public?
Anyone who considers such a possibility would look at the long history of UFOs and ask themselves 'could one of those instances represent an encounter with alien technology?'
Why is it that (when apparently necessary) the Pentagon manages to find individuals who would answer that question with a resounding 'No.'?
The Guardian has been a lost cause for quite a while now:
“British ‘watchdog’ journalists Mason and Cadwalladr unmasked as security state lapdogs - Events of the past few days suggest British journalism – the so-called Fourth Estate – is not what it purports to be: a watchdog monitoring the centers of state power. It is quite the opposite…”
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/06/21/british-journalists-mason-cadwalladr-security-state-lapdogs/