Drones

[Wash DC Blue]

As I said in the Epstein thread, I'll provide a summary of the New Jersey drones situation here and the subsequent lies that came from the White House.

Between November last year going into January this year, there were daily sightings of anomalous craft not just in New Jersey (although this was the epicentre for such activity), but in other parts of the US and other countries including the UK and Germany. All the affected areas were home to US military bases. These craft hovered over them with impunity.

The "craft" fell into two distinct categories - illuminous orbs and mechanical drones. The latter were anomalous due to the fact they were very large for a drone (about the size of an SUV), many were silent whilst others produced sounds you'd expect from rotary blade mechanisms. They were observed to fly or hover for up to 8 hours. The US authorities failed to identify where they were coming from but many eye witness reports claimed they were coming from offshore. None of them had flight transponders. Local services were inundated with reports, queries and general widespread panic, which turned to anger when the public were not getting any answers.

Under the Biden administration, the FBI (or was it the Pentagon? I can't remember) said in a press conference that they don't know what these drones are or where they have come from. But then tried to reassure the public that they're not a threat, which is quite frankly ridiculous.

In January, in the run up to his inauguration, Trump promised that he would let the people know what these drones are, saying he couldn't understand why the Democrats were keeping it secret. On Trump's first full day after his inauguration he was reminded about what he had promised and promptly ordered someone to go find out. A few days later Karoline Leavitt made an even more ridiculous statement in a White House press conference by saying all the drones were FAA approved. They were for research and other purposes. Nothing to see here.

Do you honestly think that if they were all FAA approved they would be without transponders? That they would have allowed all that widespread panic and confusion and wasted the time of all those local services, governors and the like? It was blatant gaslighting. At least under the Biden administration they put their hands up and said 'we don't know what they are'.

Since then, focus has turned to the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, led by Ana Pauline Luna. Just like the JFK, MLK and Epstein files, progress has been slow on the disclosure of UAPs. The associated UAP Disclosure act doesn't seem to be getting anywhere either. It seems the government is divided on the matter as some are pro disclosure whilst others are against it. The recent WSJ article that claimed UFOs were just a cover story for secret military tech was laughable and was clearly orchestrated by those in government who are not in favour of disclosure.

It’s intriguing to say the least.
What have they been like since January and what is your honest opinion as to what it was/is?

[stevo]

Since January, I’d say the sightings are back to the same levels as they were before November.

I putting the orbs down to NHI and the mechanical drones down to the Chinese.

[stevo]

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I gave it 15 mins. Probably one for those already converted.

[stevo]

Wow. And I guess your mind was already made up before you started watching it

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Wow. And I guess your mind was already made up before you started watching it

Why do you always make such silly remarks? If something isn't that convincing it doesn't mean that the person concerned has a closed mind.
Anyone with any intelligence should want to find the truth regarding anything rather than having a preconceived idea that one wishes to illogically hang onto. If so called 'evidence' isn't convincing then there's no need to make ad hominem remarks even if it is in humour.
That is truthpaste's way of perceiving things.

[stevo]

Why do you always make such silly remarks?

Hmmm. I think there have been two occasions when I have commented on the fact that you were quick to dismiss a paranormal event. But 'always...silly'?

In the case of Beatriz Villaroell's paper, you say the evidence isn't convincing. But if you only watched the first 15 minutes of the video then you wouldn't have heard all the evidence, so how can you form an opinion on whether it's convincing or not? That is characteristic of a closed mind.

I'll summarise:

* Over 300,000 photographic plates taken in the pre-Sputnik (1949 - 1957) era were analysed.

* Over 100,000 transients were identified

* There was a statistically significant correlation on the number of transients found on dates when nuclear testing was known to have taken place or dates where there were mass reports of UFO sightings (e.g. Washington DC 1952)

* The transients were typically observed outside of Earth's shadow indicating that the object's brightness was caused by the sun's reflection

* The magnitude of the brightness was too high for these objects to be natural i.e., a rocky surface.



Most folk on here when discussing anything paranormal say they will follow the science. In this case, a scientist has followed the scientific method and put forward a paper for peer review. However, it probably won't get peer reviewed - not because the evidence is uncompelling but because of the stigma attached to the subject. This is the exact opposite of what scientists should be doing, which is to follow the data.

But this is typical of modern science. Take Brian Cox for instance. Obviously a very clever chap. He says his hero is Galileo Galilei because spent the rest of his life under house arrest for daring to stand up to the Catholic Church and tell them they were wrong. Yet Cox scoffs at the idea of alien visitations and rules out the possibility by applying our current understanding of physics (such arrogance!). He will say it's not possible due to the vast distances involved and citing other theories such as the Fermi paradox. It sounds to me like his mind is fairly closed on the subject.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Hmmm. I think there have been two occasions when I have commented on the fact that you were quick to dismiss a paranormal event. But 'always...silly'?

In the case of Beatriz Villaroell's paper, you say the evidence isn't convincing. But if you only watched the first 15 minutes of the video then you wouldn't have heard all the evidence, so how can you form an opinion on whether it's convincing or not? That is characteristic of a closed mind.

I'll summarise:

* Over 300,000 photographic plates taken in the pre-Sputnik (1949 - 1957) era were analysed.

* Over 100,000 transients were identified

* There was a statistically significant correlation on the number of transients found on dates when nuclear testing was known to have taken place or dates where there were mass reports of UFO sightings (e.g. Washington DC 1952)

* The transients were typically observed outside of Earth's shadow indicating that the object's brightness was caused by the sun's reflection

* The magnitude of the brightness was too high for these objects to be natural i.e., a rocky surface.



Most folk on here when discussing anything paranormal say they will follow the science. In this case, a scientist has followed the scientific method and put forward a paper for peer review. However, it probably won't get peer reviewed - not because the evidence is uncompelling but because of the stigma attached to the subject. This is the exact opposite of what scientists should be doing, which is to follow the data.

But this is typical of modern science. Take Brian Cox for instance. Obviously a very clever chap. He says his hero is Galileo Galilei because spent the rest of his life under house arrest for daring to stand up to the Catholic Church and tell them they were wrong. Yet Cox scoffs at the idea of alien visitations and rules out the possibility by applying our current understanding of physics (such arrogance!). He will say it's not possible due to the vast distances involved and citing other theories such as the Fermi paradox. It sounds to me like his mind is fairly closed on the subject.

Your remarks were silly as they were effectively ad hominem i.e. accusing me of having a closed mind because I wasn't totally convinved of claims made in some videos you linked to.

As for your comment about the paranormal and science, the latter is, by definition, about information and data that can be determined which may prove hypotheses and predict events. It's about knowledge and any sensible scientist knows that there are things we don't yet know. Scientists, being human beings, may have different opinions about different things that may currently lie outside the data currently available (just as they didn't the past) and that is logical.

As for Brian Cox's opinion about alien visitations, I have read some of his books and I wouldn't associate him with 'arrogance' at all. He belongs. He was a huge admirer of Richard Feynman, who delighted in occasionally being proved wrong in his scientific career - as it meant that something had been learned rather than something incorrect being held onto merely for egotistical reasons.

As for your comment 'In this case, a scientist has followed the scientific method and put forward a paper for peer review. However, it probably won't get peer reviewed - not because the evidence is uncompelling but because of the stigma attached to the subject.'
Can you quote the scientific paper she published and which would have been subjected to peer review as opposed to the published reports concerned? I would certainly be interested in the peer reviews wherever they point. (I don't buy your comment about reviews not being made due to the subject matter being a 'stigma).

P.S. You seemed to buy into the subterranian pyramid stuff quite recently and I am not aware of a paper being published on that subject yet. From what I know, the theory seems fanciful and not sustained by meaningful data but, as ever, I would think otherwise it if were subjected to analysis by a wide range of experts in the foeld rather than just watching videos. One doesn't want to be gullible and accept everything that does the rounds after all.

[stevo]

Your remarks were silly as they were effectively ad hominem i.e. accusing me of having a closed mind because I wasn't totally convinved of claims made in some videos you linked to.

That was due to the fact that you didn't watch the whole video and therefore not take on board all the evidence and quickly made up your mind.



https://www.researchgate.net/publica...mar_Sky_Survey

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6347224/v1



Regarding the pyramid structures, I'm not aware of any paper either. However, the team have developed their own patented solution and I'm guessing they want to keep the details of that under wraps at least for the time being. But that was an interesting case because when they made an announcement, people were quick to debunk it saying SAR can't penetrate levels that deep. But if anyone spent more than two minutes looking into their claims, they would have seen that the team weren't claiming that SAR was being used in that way at all - instead using SAR to detect acoustic vibrations rising to the surface of the Giza plateau. And it was the differences in those acoustic vibrations that suggested differences in the structure below the pyramid. They have used this technology to map out tunnels under mountain ranges, which we know are there. So, there is some credence to all this.

Next week I think we should discuss Materialism vs Idealism. That should be even more fun.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

That was due to the fact that you didn't watch the whole video and therefore not take on board all the evidence and quickly made up your mind.



https://www.researchgate.net/publica...mar_Sky_Survey

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6347224/v1



Regarding the pyramid structures, I'm not aware of any paper either. However, the team have developed their own patented solution and I'm guessing they want to keep the details of that under wraps at least for the time being. But that was an interesting case because when they made an announcement, people were quick to debunk it saying SAR can't penetrate levels that deep. But if anyone spent more than two minutes looking into their claims, they would have seen that the team weren't claiming that SAR was being used in that way at all - instead using SAR to detect acoustic vibrations rising to the surface of the Giza plateau. And it was the differences in those acoustic vibrations that suggested differences in the structure below the pyramid. They have used this technology to map out tunnels under mountain ranges, which we know are there. So, there is some credence to all this.

Next week I think we should discuss Materialism vs Idealism. That should be even more fun.

What is a 'patented solution'?
Patents tend to pertain to invented technology that is original and which receives protection from those wishing to copy or use it for a specified period. From my time working in the field of Intellectual Property, I can't recalling it having a role in ancient historical discoveries.
Has the team concerned submitted and eventually had approved a patent of some description in the course of their research and specifically relating to technology they developed? If so, what relevance is that pattern to publishing historical evidence? And what is the specific information that you base your 'guessing' on?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I doubt anyone here is keeping track (or has even heard) of the Buga sphere story - a metallic sphere that was filmed flying around Buga, Columbia earliewr this year before hitting a powerline and descending to the ground. It was captured and has been analysed by scientists in Mexico. Plenty about this on YouTube and is covered by the usual tabloids who are not afraid to report on this kind of thing. Since, other spheres have been captured on video elsewhere in Columbia and even China.

https://www.unilad.com/technology/sp...91649-20250610

https://unidentifiedphenomena.com/to...ga-ufo-sphere/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-...dible-35368085

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...oves-real.html


https://youtu.be/3w8vMou9jZg?si=4wYOVKQzGKsjbrqB

Anyway, a major press conference on this subject is scheduled for tomorrow:

https://youtu.be/J7YTP0rnb8M?si=0Wn-vJ-NMdsWx6Eh


And whilst I'm here, some updates on the Nazca mummies

https://youtu.be/Pd5gyYNnxWY?si=uGTa6UFTqcWSbybK

Written just last year, John McDowell (and not his son, the lawyer) stated in correspondence and regarding supposed 'obfuscation' about the mummies:

Thank you for the information you have provided. I am especially grateful for the attached images. Please give me a little more information about yourself and why you have an interest in these "Nazca Mummies."

None of us (Dr. Caruso, Dr. Rodriguez or I) who traveled to Peru to examine some of the "Nazca Mummies" have ever claimed or stated in any way what these specimens (specifically the images you have attached to this email) actually are. We were more interested in the "humanoid", larger bodies and did not spend much—if any time--with the smaller, "doll-like" entities. To my knowledge, none of us have stated anything in the public domain about these specific entities as shown in your email attachments. In fact, I do not believe that any of us said anything about the specimens represented in the images you have provided.

Please understand that we know the "Nazca Mummies" you have sent images of were never living entities composed of the hard tissues of one and only one "species." It would be foolish to state that these "bodies" could represent individuals that could have been alive let alone capable of walking, flying or swimming. Please do not infer that we said otherwise.

As I have said publicly, Jaime Maussan never at any point tried to influence our opinions nor would we allow him, or his associates to influence in any way our very limited evaluations of the entities that we examined during our short time in Peru. As I have clearly stated in multiple forums, we want to work with any reputable organization or individual(s) to determine what any and all of the "Nazca Mummies" actually are. Further know that we are all aware of hoaxes that have been perpetrated on well-meaning "scientists" in the past.

As any reputable, competent scientist would do, we maintain a high level of skepticism regarding the "Nazca Mummies."
John McDowe

P.S. I will be flying over what are referred to as the 'Nazca Lines' (symbols carved into the terrain) myself in November.

[stevo]

What is a 'patented solution'?
Patents tend to pertain to invented technology that is original and which receives protection from those wishing to copy or use it for a specified period. From my time working in the field of Intellectual Property, I can't recalling it having a role in ancient historical discoveries.
Has the team concerned submitted and eventually had approved a patent of some description in the course of their research and specifically relating to technology they developed? If so, what relevance is that pattern to publishing historical evidence? And what is the specific information that you base your 'guessing' on?

Is invented technology not a type of solution? Semantics. Anyway, perhaps their solution isn't patented, but proprietary and that was just an assumption on my part. But their unique use of SAR technology to analyse micro movements generated by background seismic waves to generate 3D tomographic images is a solution devised by that team.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231

[stevo]

Please understand that we know the "Nazca Mummies" you have sent images of were never living entities composed of the hard tissues of one and only one "species." It would be foolish to state that these "bodies" could represent individuals that could have been alive let alone capable of walking, flying or swimming. Please do not infer that we said otherwise.

As any reputable, competent scientist would do, we maintain a high level of skepticism regarding the "Nazca Mummies."
John McDowe[/I]

I don't know who John McDowell is and what this is in response to. Can you send a link? He says he knows these mummies were never living entities without expanding further. I'm hoping this information can be found elsewhere.

If they are faked, then they are fakes that are thousands of years old, which in itself is worthy of investigation. IIRC, about 15% of the DNA retrieved from those bodies is still unknown.

BTW, scepticism is a good thing, it means keeping an open mind as opposed to outrightly rejecting something until proven to be true.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Is invented technology not a type of solution? Semantics. Anyway, perhaps their solution isn't patented, but proprietary and that was just an assumption on my part. But their unique use of SAR technology to analyse micro movements generated by background seismic waves to generate 3D tomographic images is a solution devised by that team.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231

Semantics? If you use a term perhaps it would help if it meant something.
If no patent is involved then what does that mean about what you were 'guessing' about?
And what is now the actual reason why have the claims not been officially published in a scientific paper that can be peer reviewed?

[stevo]

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I don't know who John McDowell is and what this is in response to. Can you send a link? He says he knows these mummies were never living entities without expanding further. I'm hoping this information can be found elsewhere.

If they are faked, then they are fakes that are thousands of years old, which in itself is worthy of investigation. IIRC, about 15% of the DNA retrieved from those bodies is still unknown.

BTW, scepticism is a good thing, it means keeping an open mind as opposed to outrightly rejecting something until proven to be true.

John McDowell is the father of Josh McDowell, who is mentioned in one of the videos you posted.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Semantics? If you use a term perhaps it would help if it meant something.
If no patent is involved then what does that mean about what you were 'guessing' about?
And what is now the actual reason why have the claims not been officially published in a scientific paper that can be peer reviewed?

No specific answers from you then.

[stevo]

No specific answers from you then.

I'm sorry. I've just lost all interest in this conversation. You're focussing on the side issues of peer reviews (or lack of) rather than the topic of conversation yourself. Besides, the peer review system is heavily flawed. As someone who has worked in a Russell Group University for 34 years, I know how research is funded. And for both research grants and and peer review, good luck trying to get something published that challenges the agreed narratives. The odds are stacked against you from the start.

The last thing I'll say on this topic is that the widely anticipated Jesse Michel's video covering the Nazca mummies that I posted above was released yesterday. Interestingly, John McDowell is featured in that who clearly isn't dismissing this whole subject.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I'm sorry. I've just lost all interest in this conversation. You're focussing on the side issues of peer reviews (or lack of) rather than the topic of conversation yourself. Besides, the peer review system is heavily flawed. As someone who has worked in a Russell Group University for 34 years, I know how research is funded. And for both research grants and and peer review, good luck trying to get something published that challenges the agreed narratives. The odds are stacked against you from the start.

The last thing I'll say on this topic is that the widely anticipated Jesse Michel's video covering the Nazca mummies that I posted above was released yesterday. Interestingly, John McDowell is featured in that who clearly isn't dismissing this whole subject.

I am trying to take into account peer review as the view of experts in the field, a field that I am no expert in myself, hold some gravitas regarding scientific theories and data.

Just swallowing whole online videos is not my bag - and I remember you posting a link not so long ago by someone who was an experienced hoaxer.

If you post links and videos on here you should be prepared to accept searching questions about the subject matter concerned (and most posters ignore them!).

Good science should be open to scrutiny by all and sundry.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Most posters ignore your drones and extra-terrestrial stuff, I meant.

[stevo]

Most posters ignore your drones and extra-terrestrial stuff, I meant.

I got that impression by the fact that you’re the only one who responds to my posts. And the reason why I’m restricted to posting videos on the subject rather than scientific papers is for the reasons I have already explained. It all comes down to biases and dogma, which true science should play no part in, but unfortunately it does.

I assume the “hoaxer” you’re referring to is Jaime Maussan. For the record, I don’t believe he’s a hoaxer. He’s guilty of picking up a story, running with it, only to find out the story was false and it makes him look stupid. But he is not the man behind the hoax that he’s claimed to be. He’s just naïve at best, but also passionate about the subject.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

It is the irony of ironies that you mention biases and dogma whilst conceding that the 'naïve' individual concerned ended up looking 'silly' as the story concerned turned out to be 'false'.

No wonder that some people require more than watching a video online that someone posts a link to!

It smacks of a lack of intellectual rigour all round.