News Briefs 11-09-2014

Sorry Apple, but I stopped using watches 25 years ago –& I’m staying that way.

Thanks to Chris Savia & Gustavo Cerati —Hasta siempre, genio!

Quote of the Day:

“Wisdom begins in wonder.”

~Socrates

  1. Newsweek has pretty much
    Newsweek has pretty much drawn the line in the sand. It ought to be quite obvious by now that some very bad folks have taken over the US government and media and have turned it into a fascist state intent on imprisoning or at the very least vilifying anyone who does not play along with the various cover stories for what amount to military coups – 9/11 having been the most egregious of them all. It is getting genuinely hard to remember that the US was once a democracy. However, it is very encouraging to see that rags like Newsweek feel compelled to highlight and go after “conspiracy theorists’ who are after all just being good historians and journalists – it means that there are now sufficient numbers of Americans who have awakened to reality that the current corrupt political stage managers feel threatened.

    1. Conspiracy theorist!!
      What bothers me is how nowadays the term has become the preferred ad-hominem attack of mainstream media. Wot, you dare to question the UN’s posture on global warming? You must also think Princess Di was killed because she was about to reveal her former in-laws are shape-shifting reptilians!

      I think it should be obvious by now I’m more skeptical on some theories than others. That wouldn’t give me the right to claim I’m 100% certain said theories are pure baloney, though. One shouldn’t in fact be 100% certain of anything.

      So yes, I’m bothered by how Newsweek is painting us all with the same broad brush. So now you’re finding more people are questioning the official narrative? Well maaaybe the fact you guys have been caught LYING to us on numerous occasions, and withholding crucial facts from the public, has something to do with it…

      1. Antone who looks deeply into
        Anyone who looks deeply into the events of 9/11 – and it is easy to do that on the net after 13 years of very good sleuthing and real journalism – does not walk away from the subject thinking there are a lot of nuances of “gray areas.” Military coups eventually get thoroughly busted on the internet, and all the details of how it was done and who did it come to light. Any court of law that obeyed constitutional legal procedures would be throwing some mighty highly placed past politicians in the prison for life if we still lived in a functioning democracy – we do not. I don’t advocate the death penalty, but some of the military insiders and members of the executive branch involved in “leaving the gates open” on 9/11 are technically traitors and would be hanged after court martial. Understandable. most people do want to “go there” – it is too much trouble and anguish. I am just thankful there are a few moral researchers out there who refuse to bow down to the wreckers.

        http://www.bollyn.com
        Journalist Chris Bollyn, by the way, is returning to the US to go on a speaking tour outing the players of 9/11. Given that Bollyn was beaten up and threatened by hired thugs and was forced to leave the country it is a testament to his ethics and bravery that he is coming back anyway. Some people just have to much grit to quit.
        http://www.bollyn.com/michael-chertoffs-childhood-in-israel

  2. bat mobile
    ugh…stop, just stop. Why does every new bat mobile have to look like something a “doomsday prepper” made in the backyard of his mom’s house? C’mon, I like the old school original sleek look, not the street legal tank look. They make it look like his car is his only weapon, he has a utility belt too. Of course if they beefed that up poor Bruce wouldn’t be able to walk 😛

    1. Pimp my batmobile
      I suppose the aesthetic decisions were based on the believability factor: The tumbler in Nolan’s movies was perfect because it looked like something it might exist in the real world, which helped the audience suspend their disbelief and actually think real superheroes could be walking among us.

      I personally feel the new design still keeps the utilitarian aesthetic it needs, while at the same time it pays a homage to the ‘old school’ Batmobiles of yesteryear.

  3. Godzilla
    God, can you tell they blew all there budget on a character than wasn’t even in the film for more than like 18 minutes? All the MUTO move like puppets or the villains from a Power Rangers episode!

      1. Given the current mess in
        Given the current mess in international politics I find myself half hoping for a big volcanic show in Iceland – something that so distracts the planet from it pettiness by throwing something really monumental in their faces – something that requires international cooperation to handle adequately.

        http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/mib_003.htm
        “The Man in Black asked
        Rojcewicz what he was doing. Rojcewicz said he was reading about flying
        saucers. “Have you seen a flying saucer?” the Man in Black asked.
        Rojcewicz said he hadn’t. “Do you believe in the reality of flying
        saucers?” Rojcewicz said he didn’t know much about them and wasn’t sure he
        was very interested in the phenomena. The man screamed: “Flying saucers
        are the most important fact of the century and you are not interested?””

  4. Carlos Antonio de los Santos
    My question doesn’t speak specifically to the case, but rather to the Men in Black scenario.

    Why do you suppose it is that the witnesses are threatened with reprisals for talking about it at the time of the incident, yet when they talk in depth about their experiences a few years later there are apparently no repercussions at all from the Men in Black?

    Do you suppose these are embellishments of encounters with government agents in which the threat was imagined or amplified in the witness’s mind in order to fit the legend? After all, if spilling the beans then is dangerous, why is it not also dangerous later?

    Adding the Men in Black to any case immediately makes it suspicious because of that logical inconsistency. And some woo woo, paranormal evasion isn’t an answer to the MIB question.

    I remain, as always, a skeptical believer.

    1. MIB’s may have been more of
      MIB’s may have been more of an effort to stamp the original experience as being otherworldly. They weren’t really warning so much as they were enhancing or embellishing. They were play acting in order to stretch out and strengthen the percipients experience as having been otherworldly.

        1. No, I didn’t say that at all.
          No, I didn’t say that at all. I said the MIB’s were inserted into the experience by some outside agency in order to cement the idea that the percipient had had an otherworldy experience. A government or military complex interested in camouflaging their most advanced black op craft in a veneer of being ET would use such ruses as part of their covering up strategy.

          1. To
            To wit:

            http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/mib_003.htm
            “The Man in Black asked
            Rojcewicz what he was doing. Rojcewicz said he was reading about flying
            saucers. “Have you seen a flying saucer?” the Man in Black asked.
            Rojcewicz said he hadn’t. “Do you believe in the reality of flying
            saucers?” Rojcewicz said he didn’t know much about them and wasn’t sure he
            was very interested in the phenomena. The man screamed: “Flying saucers
            are the most important fact of the century and you are not interested?””

            Of course, this article hints at the phenomena being something else entirely from what we may think it is.

          2. Rojcewicz
            That was an interesting story. I always find fascinating how these individuals seem to ‘exude’ an aura of menace. Maybe it’s a very high-tuned psychological trick; maybe it’s something more.

    2. Carlos & the MIB

      Why do you suppose it is that the witnesses are threatened with reprisals for talking about it at the time of the incident, yet when they talk in depth about their experiences a few years later there are apparently no repercussions at all from the Men in Black?

      It is a valid question, and the answer I might provide is pure speculation. I like emlong’s concept of the MIB appearing not so much to threaten the witness, but to underscore the otherworldliness aspect of their experience; however, if you’ve followed Nick Redfern’s research on MIBs, you’ll know by now this is an umbrella term, and that there seems to be different MIB groups pursuing different agendas, ranging from the more mundane-looking MIBs –those who might be members of intelligence agencies clandestinely investigating a sighting– to the really creepy-looking ones, who might seek to scare the witnesses in order to ‘feed off’ their fear itself!

      My own personal conclusion, is that the reason MIBs were involved in this case, is because Dr. Hynek *also* became involved. My feeling is the MIBs were there for him, and not so much for Carlos. But, like I said, this is all speculation on my part.

      You mention embellishment, and I can say to you that, during my investigation for the writing of the article, I did find a couple of MINOR inconsistences between what Pedro Ferriz wrote about the case in 1978, and what Carlos has told to other investigators in later years. Discrepancies about the number of MIBs who comfronted him on his way to the studio, for example –Ferriz wrote they were 3, whereas Carlos told in radio interview some years ago they were 4; things like that.

      Any investigator would tell you that over the years some embellishment is inevitable, especially if the person has repeated the same story over and over again. However, Carlos has NEVER deviated about the main core of his account –the appearance of the objects in the air, how he reacted, etc– and so that leads me to believe he’s telling the truth about the fact that he received threats on those 2 occasions.

      About whether he was telling the truth about the UFO encounter itself, I don’t have to guess: The evidence stands by itself.

      1. When I used the term
        When I used the term “embellishment” I was implying that the MIB’s were there to embellish the creepy ambience of the original experience because humans pay a lot of attention to creepy. They don’t forget creepy.
        The real point here as you have fleshed out is that there is no generic MIB experience, and that is a very important point.

      2. Damaged goods
        I just have one observation from our online discussion, ardent ET believers (zealots) and those who exploit that belief for profit do a great deal of harm and stand in the way of any serious consideration of the UFO subject by the more objective among us. This case has been “muddied” by being adulterated to a pre-conceived agenda. Because of that, I can only consider it to be possibly true, not conclusively true.

        1. Ardent ET believers

          This case has been “muddied” by being adulterated to a pre-conceived agenda. Because of that, I can only consider it to be possibly true, not conclusively true.

          You will notice that at no time I even used the word ‘extraterrestrial’ in the post. I didn’t even use the word ‘alien.’ I treated the 3 objects Carlos saw as what they were: Unidentified –True, I might have used the word ‘craft’ a couple of times, but in this case and given the UFO’s appearance it might not be such a logical leap.

          So, even though I may be perceived to ‘profit’ from writing about this case –As a contributor for Mysterious Universe, I do get paid for articles* — I certainly hope you’re not piling me up with the rest of the ‘true believers’ 😉

          Has the case been ‘adulterated’ by a pre-conceived agenda? Certainly the only ones who seem to have bothered to look into the story of Carlos Antonio de los Santos, were those who were in favor of the reality of the UFO phenomenon. I first learned about this case years ago, when I read the book by Mexican UFOlogist Pedro Ferriz Los Ovni y la Arqueología de México (UFOs & Mexican Archeology), and while he was a proponent of the Extraterrestrial hypothesis, there’s a large consensus among ALL Latin American UFOlogists that Don Pedro was a man of great honesty and integrity. He made clear to his readership when he was presenting facts, and when he was departing from those parts in order to give an informed opinion.

          My main motivation to write about Carlos Antonio, even if as you say it had already been publicized in several other outlets by people who may or may not have a concise agenda, was simply because I feel this case DOES deserve to be looked into, does deserve more scrutiny and does deserve more attention than other more-famous but less-relevant cases –that’s why I used the Valentich’s disappearance as a point of reference.

          IMO the language barrier may have been one of the factors why this is still a relatively obscure UFO close encounter. But that’s where bilingual people like myself should come in 😉

          But don’t worry: I have no intention about writing about Carlos Antonio repeatedly, the same way some bloggers keep posting about Roswell every other month 😛

          _____________________

          (*) Although if you consider all the hours it took to research and write the damn thing, the ‘pay’ didn’t even amount to minimum wage 😉

        2. After having my own sighting
          After having my own sighting I consider myself a, say, 80% believer that there are intelligently guided craft out there that vastly exceed what we can do with technology as the lay public understands it That doesn’t mean I think that my own sighting for instance was an affair of the ET. I would not consider myself a “zealot.” Not sure what you mean by zealot. An enthusiast is not necessarily a zealot.I find that a lot of people call anyone who is enthusiastic on the subject a zealot, but the strict definition of a zealot is someone who tries to convert others to his belief. To those who are offended by the very idea that there might for instance be non-human intelligent races any mention of the idea can be characterized as zealotry when it is just simply the proferring of an opinion. Some folks I know have a strange antagonism towards the subject as if just considering it violates a strong taboo. I have a TDG blog link on a similar idea – fear of PSI.

          http://dailygrail.com/blogs/emlong/2014/8/Fear-Psi

          1. UFO Zealotry
            UFO zealots are the slugs who make up stories and/or hoax photos to back up their passionate belief (or sometimes it seems, desperate need to believe) that everything that can’t immediately be identified is an alien spaceship (even the flies caught zipping through a camera frame).

            And if you haven’t run across any of them, you must live in a bubble. These people have blogs and regularly show up in the comments on others’ blogs. Everything is irrefutably ET and they will brook no reasoning on the subject.

            I don’t a priori reject that aliens might visit Earth, but I’ve yet to see anything that convinces me conclusively that it’s actually occurring or has occurred. And I, too, have had my own experience that I can’t explain. But my inability to explain may be much more an artifact of gaps in my own knowledge base then possible visitors from another galaxy.

          2. Inability to explain

            I don’t a priori reject that aliens might visit Earth, but I’ve yet to see anything that convinces me conclusively that it’s actually occurring or has occurred. And I, too, have had my own experience that I can’t explain. But my inability to explain may be much more an artifact of gaps in my own knowledge base then possible visitors from another galaxy.

            I agree 100% with you. I’m not a fan of those who equate UFOs with extraterrestrial visitation, be they in the “true believer” camp, or even the skeptic camp. It’s astonishing to find how the most lauded leaders in the skeptic/debunking community base their arguments to attack the phenomenon on the most naive assumptions.

            I personally have stopped carying about the origin of these objects. I’m more interested in trying to understand what they’re doing here.

          3. Is there any difference
            Is there any difference between knowing what they are doing here and their “origins?” Once you figure the “what” you will probably also know the “where from.” Whoever they are they have extraordinary technology. I might also remind the readers that there are a few people such as Betty Luca Andreeson who have had long running, very, very detailed experiences that indicate whatever she was interacting with came from afar. Her family members also had similar experiences with the same corroborations. It is certainly possible that Betty was being deceived, but she and her family had plenty of good reason to think they were interacting with a very, very, very exotic bunch of beings. Their conviction might be dubbed “zealotry,” but I think that is a crass characterization.
            I would also remind our readers that the UFO interactions with nuclear missile facilities have been verified by many, many simultaneous witnesses. Are these people “zealots” as well for coming forward with their experiences in unison as they did a few years ago with a big, public conference?
            Of course, there are many hoaxers and highly disingenuous people out there in the UFO community – everybody knows that. I just think it is reckless to make blanket statements that imply all enthusiasts are insincere or disingenuous. It kind of reminds me of the guy who ran the lie detector tests on all of the men involved in the Walton abduction in New Mexico. To this day he insists that they all must have somehow cheated even though this fellow was considered one of the best lie detector administrators in the world and highly versed in detecting deception. He was such an anti-UFO zealot that he could not make any room in his head for the possibility that all of these men were telling the truth about what they saw and experienced.

            Here is a pretty good example of true zealotry from the other side of the issue. Note the moment when he declares “UFO’s – Impossible!”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.