Japan Airlines UFO and Related Alaskan Sightings

I do solemly swear that I acknowledge that this film was produced by the History Channel. The programs purpose is to get people to watch. I know a little about this caes as I post this. I'll look into it some more. Interesting if true.

In the meantime here is the NICAP Report by Bruce Maccabee

Several points in this case seem to be in dispute.

1. Weather Radar- from the aircraft, weather radar was used and verified a target. However the target was faint. Present, .. but faint. It was almost as if the target was rain, but there was no rain. Speculation on this point posits that the target may have been ice crystals, but this seems unlikely.

2. Ground radar confirmation. Conversations during the sighting revealed that ground radar had identified a target. Apparently, after the FAA investigation, this target was confirmed to be uninvolved with the sighting. I have no verification of this, but was allegedly in the FAA report. I haven't been able to locate this report anywhere online and don't know where to look. Any help would be appreciated either pointing me to the report or confirming this discrepency.

It is still an interesting sighting. Apparently also the pilot has had numerous "UFO" sightings after this initial one. And he even said that one of them was likely refraction from frozen ice crystals. Skeptics like to point out these numerous sightings, one of misidentification, to squash out any credibility on his observation skills. But other co-pilots saw the UFO in question albeit at a different, less visible, vantage point. And something WAS caught on weather radar. And it is not the only sighting we have seen in Alaska.

Father William Gills UFO Account

I find this to quite an interesting account that many people have never heard of.

Is the Singularity Possible??

I can't say that I'm any type of expert on this singularity business, but I'll give it a go. The singularity is a point we may or may not reach where technology and computing power becomes so sophisticated that the machines themselves might not be distinguishable from man. And, in fact, man and machine may merge into a cyborg type of creature. We may basically render ourselves immortal in that a consciousness may survive and live in the empty computing world or may be planted into any number of forms as so desired.

There are many different configurations of what the singularity may entail. And while I do deem some of it wishful scientific fiction, I can't say that we would not see at least some of the singularity unfold. Even as soo as the current generation. Computing power is still building fast. Genetics and bioengineering is becoming big business. We are learning and revising the way we look at living organisms on nearly a daily basis. Cosmology has taken giant steps to uncovering the mysteries of the universe. Physics is in the same boat and perhaps in the giant cruise ship to the land of barely detectable pieces of fundamental matter. LHC for short. Science is just plain busy.

I recently listend to a Scientific American podcast about this issue. They claim that the singularity is plain old fiction. It just won't and apparently cannot happen. They say that the mind and consciousness is too complex to ever foresee it on DVD any time soon. Then they go on to say that they really know NOTHING about the mind-body relationship. They have no clues why consciousness exists or even HOW it exists. But for some reason they are determined to undermine the notion of a singularity. In a nutshell they posit, "We know nothing about consciousness, but we know it CAN NOT go on indefinitely and will never become part of some technology". So, ... they know nothing, but they know something. Got it.

They might be right. But the fact that they acknowledge their ignorance then reject possibilities doesn't make sense to me. The mind is complex. Perhaps the mind cannot exist without the body. But maybe it can. Either way we have an extravagant, lovely, poetic arrangement of elements, compounds, molecules, organs, and so forth that make up us. Living, breathing, thinking, self aware, intelligent humans. So, if this complex configuration of molecules is the natural substances that make up our consciousness, then why couldn't it be theoretically be copied?? We are basically copying a database of points. An unbelievable one, but still a natural set of data points. With the advancement of already intricate technologies, is it beyond comprehension that we might be able to do this someday?? Perhaps not in Kurzweils lifetime, but maybe his grandsons son??

I don't find reason to reject this idea. If it is theoretically possible, then science should meet the challenges that the question poses. Science is about answering questions, but sometimes it seems as if the scientific community by in large has it's mind already made up. I think science should embrace this idea. It is one way to try and study what consciousness really is. Is it a complex arrangement of molecules?? Because if it isn't, then that opens another avenue. Consciousness comes from elsewhere and is not indicitive and local to the physical body. That type of conclusion might have creationists hopping for joy and scientists leaping from ivory towers. And for the Buddhists, the song will remain the same.

Layers of Perceptual Reality

I was out for a walk with my kids. We were at a nearby state park ambly making our way around a small lake. Stooping to pick up various autumn leaves and anything else that seemed of interest. Enjoying the sunshine and the coolness the shadows provided on this October mid day. What I saw and heard next was surprising, out of the ordinary, and left me to ponder what reality really is.

From my periphery I sensed movement down the concrete walkway towards myself and kids. My back, or rather my sdie was faced towards the oncoming party. I then heard some low growling like that from an unsure dog. Not expecting nor desiring an experience where my daughter, in a zombie like trance, is immediately involutarily drawn to this dog, I wheeled around. I was surprised, not to see a dog, but a lady running down a slope of the trail making these sounds.

She was carrying a bag and in tattered clothes, presumably homeless. Running. Feet flopping. Head straight, Growling. Something was going on inside her head, I could but guess what it might be. Another younger girl walked behind her. And I thought maybe this was a mental patient out for a walk with her "gaurdian" or something. But the young girl paced up in front of the other and walked by without any type of aknowledgement. As if she wanted to get in front and be gone. I think the growling lady was by herself. And seeing something like that is ....

Hard to describe I guess. You feel bad for the lady and even sad for her. And as I'm enjoying the warmth of the periodic shafts of sunlight I am thrown into the uncomfortable position of pondering her reality. In each case, while our perception of her is becoming of sadness or helplessness, her perception is decidedly different. But probably no less important. As the subjectiveness of our own percieved realities are the only basis for the scaffolding of discovery and inquiry to our world, we must admit and realize that a part of this, perhaps a large part, is chemically induced. Hormones, drugs, and other environmental conditions can and do affect the reality of those surrounding. And reality is in the mind of the beholder.

And when we try to strip away the onion layers of perceptual reality we might find that no layer is unimportant. And if we strip away all the layers, is there an ultimate reality or is it contingent on an observer?? And as this post is a mess of fragmented thoughts from my perspective, I almost envy those with a more distinct vivid sense of what I determine to be lunacy. Life may be much simpler if you succumb easily to grand ideas, religions, philosophies, and ideologies. And life may be quite subjectively skewed with the presence of altering molecules. While the question of behavior and perception is usually a nature or nurture answer, the fact seems to be both of these play significant parts with neither one playing less of a role.

Yea, my most non-sensical post yet.

Is Peace Possible???

We understand the concept of peace. We also understand that it is a fallacy. Or do we??

Our evolution, or really evolution in general, has it's basis on defining adaptations that allow a species to survive within a habitat. In so many words, evolution is about finding resources as effectively as possible in order to propogate a species own existence. And as determined by nature apparently, our bodies and the protiens associated can change over time as needed for successful generational livelihood.

In spite of the need to utilize certain resources, we are unique in the fact that we have defined this abstract idea called peace. Peace: a place or philosphy where all humans can get along without destroying each other or hording neccessary resources. A place where we can share the fruits of the planet. Where everyone has adequate shelter, food, medicine, and happiness. But is thes utopian ideology a realistic future?? And why would we have even defined such a philosophy if it were not possible??

I don't know that peace is a genuine probability. I think that embedded in our DNA is the code for aggressive behavior. We all need to eat. We all would like somewhere to live. We would all like to be happy. But in the pursuit of this comes competition. We can't all eat lobster. We can't all live on the beach in mutli-million dollar homes. The need and desire for certain resources is the death of possible peace. Until we can become a society that values equality across all resource needs we will never become a global peaceful civilization.

But the one thing I find interesting is the deep implications of DNA. We are on the verge of changing ourselves, perhaps in drastic ways. Can we find the aggressiveness gene? The one that neccessarily inhibits and snuffs out peace. It is beyond our control to try and become peaceful on our own (so to speak). That is, perhaps it IS within our grasp to become peaceful. But only by internal DNA manipulation. And this would create such a uniqueness to whatever species we might call it, that it would certainly be a one-of-a-kind. An organism that doesn't seek vital resources for itself only, but calmly and deliberately looks out for the good of everyone.

My thoughts are a bit mixed on this, because if we were to change ourselves into a non-aggressive entity, would it also change and undermine our individualism?? Our indivdual values, morals, and beliefs. As it would seem, this is the nature of being a conscious intelligent human. So, in a sense, perhaps peace is not all it is cracked up to be even if it were possible. So long as there are desireable things, peace will not exist. And without desireable things, what worth is life?? It seems to be quite paradoxical although superficially we attempt to look at peace as the ultimate rung of theoretical society. Hmmmm.

The Provenance of UFO's

One thing we find with UFO sightings is that they still don't seem to shed any light on the issue of provenance. Where do they come from?? What are they?? What is their origin?? This problem makes for unrealistic scientific inquiries. Science is based on observation, experiments, testable hypotheses and so forth. Usually, when presented with a scientific problem, observations help. In this case observations of UFO's hurts

The collection of sightings and continued observations is supposed to make the science better. It doesn't. And this is why UFO's, at this point, are not a scientific problem. Science as we know it cannot solve the UFO question until more verifiable data is unveiled. So what is the problem??

One of the problems is that UFO's are an evolving phenomena. Sure they tend to be discs, lights in the sky, triangles or boomerangs, or even weirdly constructed craft, but they continue to get mixed with all sorts of prosiac phenomenon as well. And that prosaic stuff is changing.

We have been in a technological age that builds new, many times secret, aircraft. And these aircraft have to be tested. We now have true drone craft. Unmanned craft that can pull off manuevers that human pilots cannot withstand. Again they need to be flown many times to test their construction. We also have satellites that can become highly visible from the ground. The Internation Space Station has been the culprit of many UFO encounters. So has the development and subsequent testing of American spy planes.

We also have many gadgets and toys that are airborn. We haven't always had all the different spectrum of flying objects in our sky. So as we are unfamiliar with many of these objects, they become the source for many UFO sightings. Then we also have even more complex hoaxers out ther as well. Lanterns in the sky. Balloons that carry timed LED flashing lights. More and more of this has been happening. All the while these hoaxes are observed by unsuspecting people and are reported.

Meanwhile if there are some real intelligently controlled non-human craft, it often or always, will be carried with the muddy array of the above mentioned. This is why, or at least one reason why, we cannot source UFO's. There is simply too much and more to come. I can't really propose a way aroud this. Ufologists have to be careful and perhaps try to classify better these sightings. Perhaps with responsible and detailed classification we can begin to recognize the lanterns, the ballons, the flares, and so forth. Not to mention the meteors, space junk, lenticular clouds, Venus, ordinary planes, flaming oil wells, and frisbees.

The subjectivity of humans seeing these phenomenon doesn't help either. Because what we may find is that people don't really describe what they actually objectively saw. They mix this in and distort the sighting with what they want to see. They may want to unconsciously be a part of something greater than themselves. And this feeling may seep into their descriptions of "something not from this world". When in truth it could have been something much simpler.

Newly developed aircraft, toys, satellites, and hoaxers all present us without a source for true UFO's. While I don't discount real UFO's, I tend to think that there is less in the numerous observations than more. It is up to the intelligences to reveal themselves if they so desire to be known. And that hasn't happened. I doubt it will happen any time soon. Until then, expect observations to weaken even the validity and acceptance of the UFO reality.

The Evidence Buildup on Mars

I'm just saying that we're certainly going to find life before it finds us. Or should I say that we will find life before any intelligent non-human life reveals itself to us??

Perhaps in the billions of years of our universes evolution there have been intelligent beings (besides ourselves, if we can count ourselves among the intelligent). Perhaps these beings have traversed space and maybe even time. Heck, thats what we are doing. At least the travel through space part. But I wouldn't bet the unveiling of intelligent hidden enigmatic beings precedes our exploration and curious will to hunt life down.

The one tipping point that might thrust a paradigm reality shift is the discovery of something alive. Or even evidence of something that used to be alive. And I think this is what the Mars research is building to. The evidence is starting to pile up. We think there was water. No wait, there seems to have been water. No wait again, there was a lot of water. Actually there was so much water that it formed deltas and large lakes as seen from the MRO.

So the elusive, while seemingly closer, remains elusive. Where is it?? Where is the life?? We're getting closer and I still hold out the probability that we find it in my lifetime. I say the odds are good. Wait and see.

The Next 1000 Years or So

Two months before I was born Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon. As I've recently recounted these Apollo missions lately with programs like "When we left Earth" and other History Channel episodes devoted to the brave deeds of these men I can only wonder what lay ahead.

I think that we will discover the ways around bone mass loss in space. The ingenuity of the human spirit has no limits. We will, if we survive long enough, stare at the face of God. We get glimpses periodically. The coding of the Human Genome was one such glimpse. We can indeed see the language of the original force. Quantum physics gives us an, at present, unreconcilable vision of the difficulty involved in unravelling the basic forces and pieces of matter. The basic particles are so mysterious that wondering how we sprung out of the primitive, non-consciousness world, is secondary to understanding what these immeasurable theoretical tinker toys acually are. But all we have is time.

And time has shown us unimaginable feats of creativity and engineering. One hundred years ago, we stood no chance of communicating long distances without great voyages. We were very excited to see an "engine" that propels a four wheeled vehicle around much larger distances. Seventy years later, we were walking on the moon. We had actually found the avenue to look back on our own planet. What is next??

If I live out my life completely, without major sudden death, I envision myself watching a man walk on the red planet. This feat would be so awe-inspiring and sublime that I don't know that I can accurately describe the type of emotion I might have. Hold no doubt about this reality. We will travel in a spaceship, unless we find ourselves able to be beamed there, to Mars and beyond. In a cliche way, it is our destiny.

And as we find our way to Mars we will find that much of our society and technological innovations have racheted up exponentially. It's certainly difficult to predict that of which you cannot imagine. As we discover and attempt to control nature, we will certainly run into many obstacles. But if we perservere perhaps we come closer to Kaku's Type 1 civilization. Perhaps we get on the map.

The one problem I see is aggresion and undying desire for control. If Type 1 civilizations exist, I wonder if and how they have moved past this. Either this society would be controlled by a supreme power or the society has lost it's selfish sense of aggression. It is possible that in the next 1000 years that we learn vast amounts about aggression, desire for control, and other apparent built in genes that control these mechanisms. And a question might be asked: Is it the best pursuit of our species to continue to carry these selfish, uncompromising genes. Absolutly there would be severe opposition and debate. But as a society becomes more advanced, more enlightened, perhaps there are unwanted characteristics that may be bred out. And perhaps that reults in a split. A manually forced evolutionary split from Homo Sapien. It could happen, or I should say that in 1000 years we may be able to do just that.

Despite the condition of society in 1000 years, whatever species is left (assuming it is increasingly more intelligent) we will be forced with the epiphany that space is our home. We will caryy the seed of humanity throughout the galaxy because it is the essence of our inner condition: to survive. And as an advanced civilization we will realize that our planet will not make the long haul and the best bet is to spread ourselves throughout habitable space.

The problems will be great. They will seem unsurmountable as many seem today. But they will be conquered. Perhaps the Large Hadron Collider unveils the mysteries or at least A mystery of the nature of matter. Perhaps NASA peels the onion layers of dark matter and energy. Could we provide solutions in the event of natural disaster?? Can we control the climate?? Can we become immortal or even reverse aging?? Can we breed out deviancy and build a scaffold of love and compassion and unity throughout our planet?? Can we smash out evil and replace it with cooperation or is evil a neccessary, well, evil??

There are many questions surrounding the future. We know how the past has played out. And although we tend to repeatedly replay this skipping record of control and conquer, I'd like to think that a better future society is possible. This overly optimistic view may be naive and it may even contain many ethical questions that remain to be thought out. But I do know that if it CAN be done, it WILL be done. This is why we will go to Mars and beyond. This is why we will clone people someday (if it hasn't been done already). This is why we will change ourselves into another species. This is how we develop new energy sources. We will do these things. Hopefully we don't destroy ourselves in the process.

Religion, UFO's, and the Media

It is such a dichotomy that we live in the US. At least for the most part. Religion plays a ridicuously huge role throughout our culture. And while I don't knock religion for everything, it has it's moments. In fact it has a lot of moments. The dichotomy that exists is that we can openly plug Jesus via numerous avenues, but should we even mention UFO's or aliens break out the tin foil hats and commence hearty laughter.

We embrace Christianity (sorry to omit everyone else here, but it IS the majority. Go ahead consider yourself a part of the cultural embrace, it's fine.) with such a ferver. We print license plates with "In God We Trust". We print giant billboards with slogans like "Repent or Go To Hell". We wear crosses, tattoo crosses, erect crosses in our yards. We build exquisite architectural shrines to the Lord our Savior. A presidential candidate has virtually NO chance of being considered without this religious baggage, whether they believe it or not. But UFO's? Please, get a freaking life you moron.

The media has always had a field day with this topic, but for some reason they never seem to attack that invisible all knowing man in the sky. Why?? Is there some evidence that Christ actually lived and presumably died willingly so that humanity may be relieved of all its sins for all the ages to come?? Ummmm, no. Yet the media treats this topic quite differently don't you think??

UFO's have been seen by thousands of credible sane people. Of course they have also been the fosterer of countless hucksters trying to make a buck. They have also been the lair of many a delusion. Make no mistake about it, UFO's bring all types from highly credible miltary to insane utterly discombobulated bobbleheads. But the fact remains that this phenomenon has affected normal people, yet you might not know this due to the media ignorant take on it. Are they being cattle prodded to tell a side of the story or are they just not very good at reporting the facts?

I can certainly understand the discourse when certain "ufologists" try to tell their story. When Jeff Peckman tells of direct evidence that of course he can't actually show. When hoaxers and liars make a complete embarrassing mockery of the topic at hand. When people make up stuff they become targets and it seems that these targets are the only ones that end up on the news. They have a way of polarizing and marginalizing the topic greatly. But is this not equally true in the religious realm as well?? Why don't we have the religious wackos exposed in the same manner as the UFO wackos?? Perhaps they are too afraid to upset the masses with something that is closer to a consensus type pseudo-truth than the UFO one.

Despite the unequal and unsatisfying reporting on UFO's over religion it will certainly not change anytime soon. I don't even know that most of the media even thinks or knows that the subject is worhty of serious discussion. These are the same masses that are grudgingly corraled in churches on Sunday. Should UFO's be a real concern it may upset the divine order.

I've recently heard a CNN reporter say that people that believe in UFO's were just lunatics. I've heard Stephen Hawking profess that UFO's only appear to cranks and wackos. I've heard a radio program crank call Peter Davenport. Imagine that. This is nothing new and I could fill this page with countless examples of the media behaving this way.

If people really knew anything about the topic they might act differently. They might. The reality of unknown intelligent life is scary and unnerving to people so it is better to bury and ridicule than to be informed. The Bible has a better story and outcome. People can deal with this, but probably they are just fooling themselves. Ignorance is bliss in this case. No aliens, only heaven. Einstein once said " the most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious". But the mysterious contains just that, an unknown. Perhaps it is just better that people deal with a worldview based on the supposedly known than actually thinking and dealing with a high probability that what they have learned about God and Jesus and heaven and a cushy afterlife is just, well, wrong.

The Psychology of Hoaxing

We see it all the time. Or at least we suspect it. And many times we can prove it. Hoaxes are found in a variety of areas and is particular concern in ufology. Whenever we see clear pictures and video the believer side rests easier as they have once again seen pure truth. And the skeptical side shouts "Hoax!" sometimes for no other reason than the pictures are too clear or the video is just too good to be true.

As a trend for further scrutiny of these apparent hoaxes we need to systematically diagnose and analyze what we can. No easy task. This takes time, man or woman hours, and careful consideration in many aspects.

But one thing has been bothering me about the aspect of hoaxing. Many times the pro-ufo side or at least the gullible pro-ufo side often rationalizes there apparent authenticity of sightings by asking why someone would hoax this. Why would someone take all this time and apparently money to hoax a UFO sighting?? I hear things like " This would have taken considerable amounts of time, intricacy, money, people, equiptment, etcetera" It seems to be a way of building a case into higher credibility by dismantling the scaffolding of apparent hoaxing procedures.

But that projects to the serious ufo community that we know the reasons for hoaxing AND we know where to draw the line that hoaxers will cross. This seems to be false logic when we try to enter the mind of a hoaxer. We have seen in several different plights where people become part of their own reality that they themselves have constructed. It has been noted that serial killers become a different version of themself. They live out fantasies or terror driven plots that are not neccessarily objective reality but percieved reality. Actors have been seen to have problems when they act the part so much that the part becomes them. And at times this percieved reality becomes an obsessive characteristic of their hidden life. Why should ufo hoaxers be any different??

By no means am I comparing the ultimate negative consequences of a serial killer and a ufo hoaxer. But it is interesting that they can be coaxed into percieved realities in a similar manner. We don't know why serial killers become what they are. Certainly there may be life-changing environmental conditions that mold such a killer. Similarly so is hoaxing cases, at least this is my thought.

Now, of course, we need to separate the gag hoaxes from the more involved ones. People may hoax for a variety of reasons and certainly do. But the ones that go to a deeper level are the ones in the light for this post. Perhaps as the ufo hoax is unveiled it may take on various veneers and may go a number of directions. And the stability of the person or persons involved may be questionable and indeed perhaps psychotic and obsessive. At that point the hoax may take on life of it's own in the hoaxers mind and become their alter reality. They may actually believe that what they are doing is, in fact, true.

I'm guessing this may be a plausible reason we see hundreds of pages of fake documents. Renderings of photos that may have taken hundreds of hours for completion. Thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to construct models, shoot videos, and all sorts of the likes of hoaxing. I think of the Caret documents and the unending story of the drones. Of Billy Meier (how long can we drag this one out for??) Of Serpa and the alien autopsy. If these were pulled off, which they were, imagine if Sir Branson became a ufo nut. What would he be able to come up with??

I guess the bottom line is that hoaxes are numerable. Hoaxes are not limited in any way except by the laws of physics. If there is a will to believe and convince, the results can be striking. This distinguishes the good ones from the bad. But we should note that when someone tries to build a case up by dismissing a hoax, then we have a flag that should go up. If a hoax CAN be done then we should give every effort into investigating it as such. Because we don't know the resources and the determination of someone doing this and we shouldn't pretend that we do know. And while we can accurately guess the underlying reasons for most hoaxes we can not underestimate the veracity, gaul, diligence, and perhaps mental stability of such people.

I Believe in God

Yes I do. I guess in some ways I am succumbing to the very thing I have problems with: belief. I don't have any proof. I don't have any pictures or video evidence. In fact I don't really have anything that tells me to do this, yet I do think there is a God or god. I don't look at god as a male with a beard. Nor a blad headed fat man with a rubbable belly. I don't know that there is any story of gods son coming to Earth to save humanity from itself. I don't think there was a battle of the Titans.

So why would I go off the deep end on this topic? It seems as science gets deeper into the understanding of our universe more and more people are becoming atheists. They would even tell you that somehow they know that god does not exist. Apparently mathmatical models indicate this even though I can't understand it. To many there seems to be a reasonable explanation that we find order and life to be a commonality of the universe. But that it was not a creation.

If we continue to go on this, I have some problems. This is because I don't think any type of organization, random or not, has to preclude the existance of god. We always seem to come back to the same unanswerable question. "Well, how did that happen??" I think there was a big bang. I think that evolution explains why we see the variety of species we do on this planet. I can't imagine other life holding planets to be that drastically different. At least the mechanism for such life. DNA seems to have been the mechanism for life here.

DNA can take on innumerable forms as we see inexhaustable variety. DNA is the archaic form. and from there natural elements seem to select different configurations of genes that result in awesome creatures that fit the surroundings in harmonious ways. The Earth is a truly remarkable place full of differing survival machines.

But the question remains. Where did the first life form come from. How did it pull itself out of the ashes of abiotic elements?? How did that first life form split into other forms?? And as we work backwards on this, where did the material come from to form our universe? And what happened before this? And before that? It seems to be an infinite rewind button. Can we ever get back to a moment that was the beginning?

Everything we know in this universe was once smashed together into near nothingness. And from that eventually sprouted life and consciousness. How have we gone from chaos to complex forms that ponder the complexity? It almost seems ironic. But to me it indicates a higher power. An entity that started the whole shabang. The big shabang I guess I should say. And although this is what we see from a cosmological perspective using science as our tool, it doesn't need to omit the existance of something. And I call that something god.

I don't expect to see my father again. I don't expect to throw frisbees to my dog again. But I do expect to be thrown back into the mix of things. There are so many question that remain unexplained, that I choose to explain them by manifesting a "god" in my head.

You wouldn't be interested in my religion. I don't go on missions. I don't have a book to read. I don't need large cathedrals in which to pray. I don't have hymns to sing and candles to light. In my own religion I feel I will someday return to sender as a raindrop returns to the sea. There may be no enlightenment or perhaps there may be. But as wonderful as life and consciousness is,I do certainly have a problem with those that seem to as easily dismiss God as those that embrace Jesus. They seem to be on the same side of the coin.

So while I believe in god, I marvel at the complexities of my life and my world. If it is an accident or a purposeful incident, life is amazing. Perhaps a cosmic seeding. And I definitily have more thoughts on this, but they will have to unfold as I continue to write. It is hard enought to organize and understand my own thought process, much less convey it to written words (well, .. typed words)

The Intermingling of Aircraft and UFO's

The Stephenville Texas case has been somewhat interesting. Usually you may see a story on google and just do the only thing you can do. Wait. I mean what the hell, I'm not in Texas. I can'tdo anything to find out more except wait and see if more is published.

So, we heard about the lights and the hovering and the silence or lack of noise. And we also heard reports of F-16s also. And we heard a top official express that is was probably an illusion from effects of the sun and planes in the air. I don't have the official quote, but it was to this effect. This was , I believe, before Major Carl Lewis said that there were no miltary planes in the area.

Then, 12 days later, the miltary fessed up to it's error. In fact 10 F-16s were in that area that night. (Although there were sightings on other nights as well). They had just messed up and hadn't realized it did have 10 jets up that night. I'm not sure the nature of the error involved but apparently, somehow, could not account for 10 F-16s on a particular date. Until later, when the error was noticed. Whatever system they have for accounting for multi-million dollar aircraft must just suck.

This is one area that bothers me a bit. But I suppose, I don't know, what to think. The other is the intermingling of UFO's and known aircraft. We seem to have possibly seen this before. Whatever it is about this so-called UFO activity and the miltary is apparently connected somehow.

This calls for a number of possibilities.

1. The military and the UFO's are man-made. Whatever the nature of the UFO's they are under current man made environment. Reasons are numerous but irrelevant at this point.

2. The military knows of these objects and interacts. They throw smoke screens and mirrors all about to disguise the truth of the phenomena, whatever it is.

3. These are just f-16s and people are mis-identifying. Maybe there is more in the mix including atmosphere, weather, sun angles, etc


Maybe there are more possibilites, but we have seen this union of apparent UFOs and military activity. It has been reported in The Phoenix Lights, the Hudson Valley, Area 51, and more. Testing facilities? In some cases I think yes. And in other cases I think, well probably.

I wonder about a few things. Do we really know the far reaching effects of societal control and how that might be brought about? I have to wonder if the phenomenon of UFOs could be used in a way to gain control and favorability of society. I guess I have to ask, could this all be a ploy by the government? A test of some kind?? A little paranoid view, but I suppose a fair question.

One way or another there definitely IS a connection between the military and these UFO's. Whether UFO's are the product of the military is another question. In the meantime we should expect more incidents like this where confusion and conflicting reports are commonplace. Perhaps this is just what the governmental agencies would like. Of course this depends on what the ultimate truth is.

My Look at Bigfoot: Some Questions and Points

I must admit, I'm a closet fan of this beast, real or not. I find myself secretly surfing the web while peering behind my back to see that my wife isn't watching. But, alas, she has caught me before. Looking at a picture of Bigfoot. I just had to burst out laughing myself. She knows about my curious and sometimes gullible mind, yet I still wonder can a creature exist.

As I explore it this post I am talking about the classic north American animal. Not some paranormal, disappearing one. And not the skunk ape or the Yeti, just your everyday, normal, biological Bigfoot.

One thing comes to mind, and ironically it IS the mind. The brain of this beast. If it exists, it CANNOT be compared to a chimp or gorilla. It would have been found if this were the case. It must be intelligent, perhaps on the level or moreso than humans. And it's population must be quite small. Perhaps hundreds to thousands. I will have to look for verifiable numbers for bear populations because we don't see them all that often, but we do see them routinely and can view them easily if we know where to look and how to track them. Bigfoot is different and the population must be a small fraction of a bear population.

I also have to ask the question: Could a group of say hundreds of backwoods savvy humans disappear from existance?? Could they mimic what Bigfoot does? In other words could they stay hidden? I suppose that depends on who is looking. If authorities sprung a high level alert in purposeful hunting for these people they would probably find them. Humans leave footprints and many other signs that would stand out somehow. At least I think. But I also think it is an important questions to ask because Bigfoot has remained hidden for so long.

But realistically who IS looking? Where are they looking and how many people are really looking? Probably a few dozen people a few times a year, covering a few square miles. Really they are covering only a small linear path within a few square miles. If Bigfoot does exist it would pretty easy to avert any intent to find them. Especially being an animal filled with the knowledge of camoflage and swift escape routes.

Now a few things puzzle me. It's not the body. I think there are many reasons for lack of bodies. There aren't many bigfoots, decomposition, maybe even burials? This doesn't trouble me. Even when we don't see bears, we see their poop. Where is the bigfoot poop?? As silly as this seems, this would be of major importance, yet we never find any. We find prints and some other sketchy stuff, but not the poop. As I write this I wonder if it just looks like bear poop. A diet may be similar to that of bears and so possibly this may be the case. Again I'll have to look into this aspect. I'm sure I'll find something. That'll be an interesting google search.

Whatever the probability of a bigfoot it is a matter of science. It must be a creature. I don't buy into any notion of it being paranormal or otherworldly although I always reserve the right to be amazed. Bigfoot, if it exists, is a biological creature. It is very smart. It has a low population. It has enought to eat and conceal itself. And where it dies and where it poops is as elusive as anything else. But if it does exist, it will only be found by a major epic scientific mission. If you have ever been in any remote area, you know the vastness of it and how little you really are. You also become aware of the possible dangers and mysteries that could be lurking nearby or in the shadows of the forests.

Chicago O'Hare Sighting: A Look Back

Well it's been a year now(close enough) that we've heard about the sighting in Chicago last year. Of course the sighting happened in Nov of 06, but didn't hit the news until early January.

I remember first thinking, this is interesting and the first thing I noticed was that it happened two months ago. I thought this was weird at first, but, I suppose I can understand the timing it. I think this was on Davenports site when it happened in November 2006, but not sure. I can't tell at this point how much fact checking went into this story before it was released. Some think that perhaps it hadn't been properly investigated and we may be releasing something that was inadequate and unverified.

Anyway an investigation was done by Richard Haines and NARCAP.

Here it is.

I'll be honest. I haven't read the entire 145 page report, yet. I'll do it in time. I'm not a freak you know.

I'm just wondering looking back on it if we can still learn anything. Can we get anything else out of it? We have the one of the biggest airports in the world and this is all we have??? No pictures? No video? Nothing really than a few people saying some things. I really have to think that maybe it didn't happen at all. I just can't get over the facts of the cloud hole, the length of the sighting, and no evidence.

I suppose it isn't any different than any sighting really. Same thing. Nothing. Maybe there was something there, but as far as convincing anyone, well, I don't know.