Saturday, December 17, 2011

Predator C Avenger

The U.S. Air force has awarded General Atomics a contract to build a third prototype of the stealthy Predator C Avenger unmanned aircraft. General Atomics has already built two such aircraft and is planning to build two more, at least one is now being funded by the U.S. Government. According to David A. Fulghum of Aviation Week, these new ‘Avenger’ versions will be more powerful and will carry more payloads than the first two prototype competed in 2009. A second Avenger flew for the first time in April 2010. The Air Force has allocated $15 million for the first aircraft but the program is expected to grow in size.

General Atomics informed the Air Force it is ready to quickly ramp up production if the Air Force or other government agencies will order more planes. The procurement is overseen by the U.S. Air Force’s secretive Big Safari, a special, rapid-acquisition organization.
The Air Force plans to send this aircraft to Afghanistan, where it will be used for evaluation of ‘next-generation UAS sensors, weapons and tactics, techniques and procedures’, enabling the service to accelerate fielding of these advanced capabilities to the area of operations. The tests will also help determining the requirement for plane’s radar signature (stealth) reduction.
Avenger is designed to perform high-speed, long-endurance, covert, multi-mission Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and precision-strike missions over land or sea. It can carry a variety of internal weapons loads, including the 2,000 lb Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), an Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR) sensor, and an all-weather GA-ASI Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI). According to General Atomics, a recce system based on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 FLIR is currently being evaluated, as well as an in-house full-motion video sensor. To maintain the clean, stealthy underside, the Avenger would probably rely on specialized integral, conformal or retractable payloads, while maximizing long loiter ISR and weapons carriage capabilities.
The Predator has been one of the most successful weapon in the Drone war the CIA has launched against international terrorist targets in Asia, the Middle east and Africa. A new and more capable Predator “C-plus”, with larger payload capacity for multiple, heavier sensors and precision guided weapons, could further enhance these capabilities, opening wider operational capabilities for operations in contested airspace. Fulghum comments that an Air Forces procurement of off the shelf drone could relieve the Pentagon of having to commit to a procurement of a new program of record for ‘MX’, “in a budget environment that is guaranteed to quash new programs.” The Predator C/Avenger has also been considered for a future U.S Navy carrier based ISR platform known as UCLAAS.
The decision was made public days after the loss of another stealthy drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel over Iran. However, according to Fulghum, the new announcement is irrelevant to the current incident. The Air Force planned to award the contract in November 2011, but budget complications have kept in pending. Officials said the project was underway before the loss of a reduced signature UAV near Kashmar in northeastern Iran Dec. 4.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Argentina: Humanoids at San Antonio de Areco (1975)

Monday, December 12, 2011

Argentina: Humanoids at San Antonio de Areco (1975)























Argentina: Humanoids at San Antonio de Areco (1975)
A Report by PROYECTO CATENT (catent2002@arnet.com.ar)

Location: San Antonio de Areco, Province of Buenos Aires
Date: Winter 1975
Witnesses: Daniel Pignalberi and Eduardo Ramos
Ages: 20 and 16, respectively


The Investigation

These were the tough days of our friend Hector Antonio Picco’s illness in the winter of 2002, from which he is fully recovered today, pursuing what he enjoys the most, his work and trying to earn enough to earn his sustenance. This great researcher organized a series of conferences in his own home. In attendance at one such event was a gentleman, accompanied by his son and some friends. Daniel had learned of this event through Mr. Horacio Fadel, and he told us that the had witnessed a not-so-unusual event (as we have come to see) that involved the presence of strange humanoid entities. We exchanged e-mail addresses and agreed to meet.

During the first conference, he spoke of the existence of another witness to the same event – his cousin Eduardo Ramos, who we met days later. The result of these meetings is the report transcribed herein.

Transcript of the Interview with Daniel Pignalberi

Interview by researchers Mariela Verónica de Tomaso and Miguel Angel Gómez Pombo, members of Proyecto CATENT, on Wednesday, 24 July 2002.

The conversation started with a discussion about how most people treat these subjects with little seriousness, and Daniel tells us he’s afraid he won’t be believed. He had a series of UFO experiences in Mar del Plata at age 15 along with his family. He tells us he’s currently 48.

“The real impact it had in my life, and truly intrigued me and caused me to read up on the subject happened when I was 22 – of this I’m sure, because I got married at 23. At the time, when one was that age, we went backpacking a lot. We were a half of a group, because we would board a bus with our backpacks and get down on a given highway, heading to the same place. We’d go other places, but in general to the same one: Kilometer 110 on Route 9, where a tributary of the Parana River flows, known as the Areco river. It’s a stream that can be crossed at a stone’s throw.

“We’d get off on the road and walk diagonally until we’d reach a certain point. It was a long walk, but we were young and could do it.”

How long did you walk?

About an hour and change, to reach the interior (it is somewhat longer than that – Interviewer). Not sure if an hour and twenty or thirty minutes. Consider that we were carrying weight, and the encumbrance slows you down. We had to cross barbed wire fences. The problem is that 15 meters on each side of the river is municipal land, and the landowners cannot challenge you. We’d camp there, within the 15-meter stretch. We went dozens of times and continued to go there after these events. One night, we’d gone with my cousin Eduardo Antonio Ramos, who is 4 years my junior. He must’ve been 18 at the time. Let me tell you that this is a flat plain. If you see it, these are flat fields, no hills, no mounds, and few trees except for our campsite, which had five or six trees. We would throw a tarp between them for shade. That night we put up the tarp. I’m a big fan, so we set up the kindling for the campfire and stepped away to go fishing or something. The time was 22:00 hours. Can’t tell you the date.

Was it Summer?

No, of that I’m sure. Because there were a lot of bugs in the summer – horseflies and mosquitoes! We’d always go in the fall or in the spring. Well, at any rate, we went fishing. It was a dark night. No lights whatsoever. We had two flashlights, one each, of the tracking type with five or six batteries. We used them only as necessary. We stepped away, we had a little camp lantern with us, but not sure if we took it along. The thing is that we’d gone fishing and felt hungry at around 22:00 hours. We started walking, left the campfire going by the tarp. Some campfire! Because we’d always leave a hole through which we’d insert the kindling and it gave of a tremendous amount of light. In an open field, with that amount of light, we were able to walk back without turning on our flashlights. We were going by the firelight, and as we approached the tarp – some 80, 70 or 60 meters away or so – I saw two persons. Two guys, two men. One was standing beside the fire and the other was to the left, crouching. I thought he was stirring the fire. I could see the fire moving. The first thing that came to my mind was...we stopped cold and I told him: “We’re being robbed”. We nearly said at the same time. Two guys in the middle of the night, and in the dark.

At that point we started sauntering with our flashlights off, leaving our tackle on the ground, and we sauntered over to get there faster. At a distance of a few meters, my cousin lit his flashlight all of a sudden. And when he lit them up, I slapped my own flashlight – don’t ask me why, I guess I wanted to shock them. But when I lowered my flashlight, the [figures] vanished. I’m telling you it was like something that was there, and then was gone. Like something disappearing. Of course, at that moment, when those people vanished, well...we can say vanished, but at the time you don’t interpret it as a disappearance. You’re not prepared for such a thing. At the moment you’re grasping for an explanation to what’s going on, and it’s not that we discussed the disappearance, either: “Where the hell did they go?! How could we have lost them?!” So we turned on the flashlights and scanned the treetops, scanned the river to see if they’d gone into a boat, if they were hiding behind the tarp...we lit up the empty fields with those flashlights. The guys had vanished before our very eyes!!

Of course, at this point we faced the fact that these guys had disappeared. “Did you see what I saw?” I asked my cousin. I’d seen it. Nowadays I tease him, because whenever we meet a few times a year, I bring up the subject and I’ll say, “I know what I saw, but what about you?”

I was left with the doubt of whether I’d hallucinated it all and my cousin was fooling me, because you can speak for yourself, but not for the other person. The fact of the matter is that we were so scared, out in the middle of nowhere, that we climbed a tree and spent the night up there. It’s not because there were two people out there. The fact is that there was something that I haven’t told you about. These two guys – and I realized this as we got closer – were strange. Strange guys, because they were all dressed in white. Completely white, with white coveralls, like white jumpsuits, completely white. They wore broad belts, black or dark, visible in the night. I could tell that they had very straight hair, swept back, as if combed with brilliantine. Both were identical. At that time I was able to see them make a motion like this (a gesture to turn around, a half turn, as if noticing the presence of the witnesses). But I couldn’t see their faces due to the fact that my cousin had switched on his flashlight. Maybe if he hadn’t, I’d have been able to see them. I don’t know what would’ve happened after that. There are people, scholars of the subject, who have told me, no, that “...things happened after that, it’s just that you can’t remember them.” What do I know? I can only tell you what I recall. We were so shocked that we stayed up in the tree, and even peed from the treetops, since we weren’t willing to come down.

In the morning, we left at first light, leaving behind our very expensive camping gear, by the standards of the times. We left a lot of things behind, since we were so desperate to get away. The problem is that one isn’t ready for this – maybe you are, since you’ve heard so many things (referring to the interviewers) and they’ve told you some many things, so your head’s ready for it. But imagine that you’d never been interested in the subject, or imagine the 1970s, when the movie ET hadn’t been released yet and Hollywood’s special effects weren’t as good as the ones nowadays, and you’re suddenly faced with this situation. It’s tough. It’s really hard to face a situation like the one we faced in the middle of nowhere.

Didn’t you feel motivated to take everything apart at night before leaving the site?

In the dark? No way! Then again, those guys dressed in white...they were like torches in the night! You cast light on people like that and see them – it’s terrible. You know how you’re driving along at night and your headlights illuminate the roadside posts? Imagine two guys in white. They couldn’t have gotten away from us in fractions of a second. They vanished on us. So what was it?

Did you notice anything odd the rest of the evening?


No. But what we saw – and much I never discussed, and I’ll tell you why. I think that maybe you heard Eduardo at some point (turning to his wife, making reference to his cousin) say that we went back, to the same place on a night not too long after, but we saw three lights moving in the sky. But three lights moving very far away...and I could see them moving, but I couldn’t tell if it was an optical effect caused by looking at a distant little light. It looked like three lights moving, but you’re always wondering. Look, I told you those two things and I’m telling you: if you hook me up to a polygraph, I’d always question whether they were real or not. You know how it is. I can tell you what I saw, but I can’t speak for others.

Why do you mistrust what you saw?

No, in this case it was just two of us. It the first case there were many of us [translator’s note – interviewee is referring to an earlier case]. I have no doubt that it was a flying saucer but years later, I wondered, since detractors of the UFO phenomenon say that one could mistaken by gaseous effects in the sky.

And the second one?

No, not the second one. Let me make it clear that on that night we were not drunk, and this one (referring to his wife) can tell you that I’m into water. I was never much of a drinker or smoker, nor was I...you get me. We were two kids who were laughing at life, fishing, we weren’t talking about witches or scary stories, not that day, no. What’s more, that day we’d laughed a lot because we were out fishing.

Well, that’s what happened to me. It was very clear.

The first time you saw them, as you came up the river...how far away were they?

I’d say about less than a block away.

Who realized this?

No, it was both of us at the same time, because we swatted each other like this, at the same time. He was on my left. I remember this clearly, and we slapped each other as if warning ourselves. We’re being robbed, dude – two guys are robbing us.

So what did you see at first sight?

We dropped our fishing rods and began sauntering.

To get closer?

Our course. Not running – sauntering with our flashlights off. Since we know the ground, we were walking right beside the barbed wire fence. It’s a low municipal fence that can be crossed without climbing. We sauntered for less than a block. I’m not sure how much faster we got there by sauntering. I figure some 60 meters more or less. I could see them well.

How could you see them? The only light was that of the campfire.

Fire, dark night. Try it sometime. It’s like lighting a huge floodlight.

And what color could you see them? Were they the color of the fire?
No, what I recall is seeing them the color a person might have. Consider two things: the shock I felt at the moment, surely there are a thousand details I’ve forgotten, a thousand details that my brain didn’t capture or a thousand details I may have changed over time. I tried, but they can get mixed up.

They wore belts?

Yes. Broad black belt, dark footwear.

You could see their shoes?

Yes. Since they were crouching, I could see them. That I remember.

They were both crouching?

No. One was standing like this (makes the gesture of standing up) sideways looking at the fire. The other one was like this (crouches). I could see him moving and that the fire moved, like when you’re roasting something.

Hair color?

Hair was dark. It struck me. Imagine two people in the middle of the countryside. You expect to come across “Don Zoilo” (a typical gaucho name) with his gaucho pants. Not far from there is a ranch of people I knew, since they were my dad’s neighbors. What struck me was to see two people in the wilderness dressed like that.

Strange noises?

None. There was no wind, no weird buzzing, nothing that told us what was about to happen.

Were you startled by anything else?

Nothing. Everything was normal. I didn’t see any lights in the sky. Didn’t taste anything odd. That’s how it was. It was striking to see something like what we’re looking at right now (lifts a flower vase from the table) and suddenly it’s gone. At that moment, when it vanishes, you don’t say: “oh, it’s vanished!” You take a while. There was a flower vase there...maybe it slid off the table...no, it vanished. Especially if it makes no noise. Now you see it, now you don’t. And it isn’t that there was a flash of lightning when it vanished, or it became transparent like with the transporter devices in Star Trek. No. It was there, now it’s gone. You don’t react at time. And what’s more, if it had happened to me today, and I’d give anything to have it happen again, I now think that my head’s better prepared for it. And nothing ever happened again, you get me?

And when they disappeared, what happened with the two of you? Did you talk?

No, no...at the time it was more like: “what do you mean they’re not here, where did they go, didn’t we see two guys, where are they. Look behind the tent, shine your light upward.” In the silence of the night, if a guy gets into a boat in the stream, he makes noise with the wood, and every so often we’d see people boating there, but it’s very shallow. In the middle of the river, the water comes up to your heels, or the water can cover you in some spots. I must have photos of the place (asks his son to find photos to show us).

So when you turned on the lights, what did you see?

When we turned on the lights is when I remember them doing this (gesture of turning their heads to where they were) and that’s when I slapped my flashlight. I don’t know why I did it. My intention was to surprise them, but in fact they weren’t doing anything, if they were people from the area. But I don’t know...

You thought they were thieves?

You know why? We had some very expensive gear with us. Fishing rods that were worth a fortune.

What were you fishing for?

Trash fish. Catfish...we were just having fun. The joy of spending the night out, having cookouts, feeling at one with nature for a few days.

How many days would you spend?

Normally the weekend. We’d leave on a Friday and return on Sunday night. On long weekends we’d spend four days.

Could we speak to your cousin?

Sure. I called him and asked him I could give him your phone number.

(Conversation is interrupted as photos of the site are shown)

So what do you think it was? Did you associate it with anything?
What did you ask me? What? (distracted, looking at the photos). See, I have a notion that the two things that happened to me weren’t of this world, and I’ll tell you why. The first thing I go by, and many people have said so and I’ve thought this, is that there are terrestrial UFOs. I’ve no doubt that there are terrestrial UFOs. But in particular, I say that this thing came out of the sea at the time when it happened, and the way that it flew...I think it wasn’t [a terrestrial UFO]. I thought maybe there are terrestrial UFOs, but they don’t have the technology to move like that in flight (continues discussing the UFO he saw in Mar del Plata. He returns to the second experience, the one that concerns us here). I also think it could be something that isn’t from here...(goes back to looking at the photos)...I was 22 years old in 1975...

After the fright you had, did you return to the site?

Yes, yes...to the very same site. But were we restless.

But you went anyway.

We’re more brothers than cousins. If you talk to him, and he starts discussing me, anything I do, to him I was the smartest guy in the world, the best looking, the best dressed, the one with the best girlfriends...when I play guitar, I’m Paco de Lucía. He plays very well, but he’s Cafrune. And he always says to me: “You know how much I love you Daniel, you know what you mean to me”. He adores me. I’m the cousin, the big brother. Furthermore, I always thought that despite me being older, I gave a lot of space in my life.

And you saw their clothing as white in the firelight?

Yes.

Is that normal, or did it have to do with...?

Can’t tell you if it’s normal. I can tell you that I remember it as white. Light is light.

When you turned off the flashlight – what happened? Were they gone. When he turned on the flashlight, at what point did they vanish?

Less than a second. Nothing. Now they’re here, now they’re gone. Like that.

Footprints or marks?

I didn’t look. We didn’t look. We were trying to answer the question: where the hell did they go? Three was the tent, and the first thing I recall, I’m not sure which one of us did it, was to run around the tent. Where the hell else would they go? We looked in the trees, in the river. These guys vanished to our faces. That’s the answer. You’re ready to see a number of things. An airplane, for example, but imagine that you suddenly see me become transparent. At the time you’re not going to say: “I saw you become transparent.” You’ll try to find an explanation for it. Furthermore, today we see many movies with a lot of information, but I don’t think they were around at the time. What was the name of the series about the guy looking for aliens?

The Invaders.

Not sure if it was around....

Yes, yes it was. You were saying, “how this changed you”. What changed?

It changes your entire head. Imagine that what changed me the most from that moment onward was...despite the fact that I have, or had religious training, I changed in that regard. I went to a religious school and they stuck a bunch of things in my head that the Church puts there. The Catechism. So from that moment on I changed. I started to see things a bit more from here, rather than from there. It’s like seeing the world standing here, not above, not the other side. You see it through different lenses.

How?

You realize that you’re not alone, we’re not alone, there could be a ton of things, don’t know if we’re spiritual or will be...I started to think that maybe we’re persons or beings that are being manipulated or watched. Or when I believed that we – Adam and Eve, God came and separated the waters from the earth, dispelled the darkness – that was my notion. Years later I didn’t believe the Adam and Eve thing. I think it was a poem to say something lovely to ignorant peoples who couldn’t be told something like Darwin’s theories, get them to follow the religion of your choosing. Of course, there’s marketing in selling religion. So it changed me. That changed me. I also felt anguish at times.

Why?

Anguish at the fact that I cannot find answers to these things. You see? You can’t solve them, except for the other day when Picco was speaking (referring to the day that he witnessed one of the presentations given by researcher Hector Antonio Picco) and he said: “I was speaking to a being that vanished before my eyes.” I love that. I was also watching Infinito (TV channel specializing in mysterious subjects) and people spoke of similar things. So it calms me, but doesn’t define anything for me. It offers no solutions. Many told me that this will be explained, it’ll happen in the year 2000, E.T.’s will land and tell us: “Here we are, this is what we are.” So 2000, 2001 and 2002 went by, and here we are. Still nothing. Not even the world ended, as so many claimed.

So what were those beings doing there? Do you have any theories? Were they there because you were there? What was your impression?

I thought they were going to rob us. That was my first impression.

So when you saw them vanish, what did you think?

What I think if you ask me to play out my imagination, well...what I like to think is that those guys must’ve come down from somewhere, or sent from somewhere, and were looking into something about the site we were camped at, and were startled and removed from the scene very quickly. That’s my notion. I’d rather think they were E.T.’s instead of ghosts. It scares me less.

It’s interesting.

Yes, yes. I think that dealing with the concept of spirituality is harder than that of E.T.’s. Maybe because I saw that massive object (at age 15 in the city of Mar del Plata).

Did you become interested in these subjects from that moment on?

No. I read about it as just another thing. It was discussed when I was a boy, but I didn’t have an opinion about them. I don’t recall. The first time, when I was 15, from that moment on, I really got into what people were saying on TV about it. I listened to them and thought: those guys are telling the truth, regardless of whether it’s real or not, they experienced it and they’re being mocked...

Would you like to relive the experience out of curiosity?

To collect information and certify that the experience was real. What I thought and what I actually experienced. It would confirm my life. I discussed it with Eduardo (cousin and fellow witness) and I tell him: “Do you remember?” to which he recalls, “Of course it happened”. It’s important to me. It changed me greatly. We are not alone. I believe in God, but I’m not sure if there is a God, or just extraterrestrials.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Conspiracy Calls: Paranoid Telephonic Bugs and MIB Surveillance



In his classic book The Mothman Prophecies, author John Keel made it clear that he was no stranger to general weirdness. In addition to being followed around by MIBs, demented Keel-clones, and dark critters that go “flap” in the night, it’s also probably worth nothing that even his phone line was hardly exempt from receiving spillover of the supernatural kind.
In fact, we might as well get things off to a good start by adding a heaping dose of synchronicity: just as I was sitting down to write this piece, my phone inexplicably lit up, then shut itself off completely, and restarted. I usually ignore this kind of thing… but for some, it’s enough to keep one’s paranoid fantasies close to the edge for days at a time. With regard to my own situation, this isn’t the only time my phone has appeared to come to life on its own, and activate or deactivate itself arbitrarily. For several months now, I’ve been experiencing a remarkable amount of Keelian weirdness regarding my cellular phone… and in truth, I might as well admit it: I’ve kind of got a history with this sort of thing.
To set the stage for what kind of telephonic hijinks I’m referring to exactly, I’ll first recap some of the things John Keel had been describing back in the late 1960s. In addition to his ongoing pursuit of awkward acting, strange dressed “weirdos” and the more stereotypical Men in Black, John Keel also described having a number of issues with his telephone line. Beeps and static were rife throughout many of his calls, and he also claimed to have heard portions of previous conversations being replayed at times, which he surmised as being a form of “intimidation tactic.” Even more curiously, Keel would go on to find that many witnesses of weirdness he would go to visit would describe similar phenomenon; occasionally such calls would only occur while Keel was visiting, and strangest of all, some would claim to have received calls from Keel himself, when he was certain no such call had been made!

My own early experiences with telephonic weirdness actually began years ago, when I was working regularly with Joshua P. Warren’s LEMUR group. Josh would call me pretty often in those days, sometimes rapping back and forth into the wee hours of the morning about various things. Often, our discussions would gravitate in the direction of what I, again, prefer to call “Keelian” phenomena (rather than “Fortean,” at least so far as when the subject matter has direct relevance to John Keel or the subjects he focused on a lot). Things would often get funny, however, as soon as we would begin to discuss anything having to do with Mothman. When we broached this strangest-of-subjects, we quite often would find that our conversation would be interrupted by strange audio, or even disconnected altogether.
On one occasion many years ago, around the month of April Joshua had begun to get a distinct impression that there might be some particularly unusual occurrences going on. This had merely been a hunch on his part, as I remember, but subsequently we had been discussing various matters of strangeness, when we came back around to the subject of Mothman. As if on cue, we were suddenly disconnected; but here’s one of the curious things about this instance: neither of us were on cell phones! Indeed, we couldn’t chalk our severed line up to being poor reception or a “drop zone” one of us had passed through while driving. So naturally, I had gone about trying to reconnect with Josh, and I pressed and held the redial button for a moment. Upon doing so, I could again hear movement on the other end of the line, followed by Joshua punching the keypad as he tried to reconnect. It was the moment that he put the phone to his ear and found that we were already connected that we both noticed a faint sound in the background: a busy signal, the likes of which one is used to hearing if they become disconnected from a phone line!
“Wait, listen… do you hear that?” Josh said excitedly. Of course I heard it, and we both went scrambling through our respective homes to make sure there hadn’t been a phone off the hook elsewhere. Indeed, it sounded as though a third line had connected to our conversation from some place, though they had obviously failed to disconnect from the call at the time Josh and I lost signal.
This sort of unusual phone activity would continue for a number of years, and in my case, right up to the present. Do I think I’m being monitored by government officials, MIBs, or space aliens, you might ask? In truth, I don’t really think this is the case, knowing the variety of glitches and bugs that cell phones in particular can fall victim to. I’ll admit, however, that it is a bit strange at times; on one occasion this past summer, I had been having a late-night esoteric discussion with a friend of mine at her apartment, when I glanced over and saw that the “message alert” LED light on my phone was on. This isn’t outside the ordinary in itself, since this light often begins flashing if a text message or email is received. But in this instance, the light was just staying on, and there were no messages! I even recall joking at the time that “it looks like we’re being monitored!”
We laughed about it, and I subsequently shut my phone off for good measure. While I haven’t been given good reason to think I’m under surveillance by the MIBs yet, I’ll start to worry if my friends start getting calls from people claiming to be me, or if similar calls forwarded to my own cellphone start replaying clips of earlier conversations. Then again, such things may be nothing sinister at all… for all we know, playing messages back to people and acting like an all-round creep may just be ET’s way of “phoning home”!

Recent Analyses of Meier's Hasenböl Photos Shows their Genuineness

 Fig. 1. Meier's photo #164. The sun is believed
to lie behind the right-hand side of the craft.
From Stevens’s “Best of Meier UFO photos,” vol. 4 (CD).
A key set of Eduard “Billy” Meier’s beamship photos for which its main investigators of 1978-1982 could claim genuineness and absence of any hoax was that of his Hasenböl-Langenberg series taken on March 29, 1976. One of a trio of photos shot after the craft had approached closest to the camera is shown on the left. In UFO...Contact from the Pleiades: A Preliminary Investigation Report (1982, p. 352) Wendelle Stevens pointed out that in his acquired photo of this scene, a branch of the deciduous tree on the far left of the UFO could be seen to lie in front of it. But this was not perfectly clear because the sun was directly behind the UFO, or barely peaking past one edge, in this trio of photos; hence there was a lack of contrast and detail due to glare. Also, the branches in question were thin, and there is lack of contrast between their shaded sides facing the camera and the shaded underside of the UFO, or beamship.
Although Stevens’s copy of photo #164 was only one generation removed from Meier’s original, other prints more available to the public were further generations removed. So this “smoking gun” of the Meier case, one of many, has lain smoldering. However, from an enlarged view of the craft and tree, a rather strong case can be made that Stevens and others on his investigating team were correct.
   
 Fig. 2a. Blow-up of a section of Fig. 1.
 Fig. 2b. Enlargement from photo #164 from
Moosbrugger's ...und sie fliegen doch!
(1991) as examined by Jeroen Jansen.

 Fig. 2c. Fig. 73 from Korff's
Spaceships of the Pleiades
(Prometheus Books, 1995)
.
Fig. 2a shows the point Stevens was making. Due to a branch on the far left, the left edge of the beamship is not quite symmetric in shape with that on the far right. On his print, Stevens and team could discern that the cause was due to the branch being in front of the craft. In Fig. 2b, a lower portion of the tree limb indicated by the arrow does seem to be faintly visible as it crosses upwards in front of the craft's shaded underside, thanks to the ability of the human eye to pick out linear structures. Although it helps, in discerning it, to see the limb below as it begins to cross up in front of the craft, this does not seem to be essential.
Because of a presentation of the same scene by Kal Korff, however, shown in Fig. 2c above, an outcome of hoax has seemed certain to some. In his analysis, automatic edge-enhancement processing was performed, in which the upper sides of significant edges are automatically marked white, the undersides black, and the rest is portrayed in grey. Due to lack of contrast, the limbs in front of the craft’s dark underside do not show up, but the unwitting viewer is led to think they should show up strongly there if it weren’t a model UFO in front of the tree. (Other faint limbs, even with sky background, are not visible in Fig. 2c due to the program’s threshold for edge detection being insufficiently sensitive.) Thus the claim of a Meier-case hoax due to this presentation by Korff is still heard in some quarters.
Actually, any apparent absence of limbs in front of the craft is not nearly as significant as the presence of a limb in front, in determining hoax or no-hoax for this trio of photos. That is because the scene in the immediate vicinity of the craft and bright sky surrounding it was rather washed out due to camera glare. Meier's photo #159 shows the same tree about the same distance away but off to the side, when his camera was directed 28° more to the left (south), and out of the sun's glare, compared with Fig. 1. The tree's image in #159 exhibits two or three times more total limb substance than is seen in #164. Absence of evidence in these sun-glare photos is thus not necessarily evidence of absence. In the trio of photos with the sun behind the craft some slim outer limbs were washed out in their entirety, others appear in broken segments.
Fresh insight on these photos comes from close examination of the other two photos of the trio taken at about the same time. When Meier took photo #175, a section of which is shown in Fig. 3 below, the craft's forward facing edge was tilted downwards about 8° relative to Fig. 1 or 2a. (See also the overall scene or a cropped version of higher resolution.) This greatly extends the amount of the sloping saucer-rim surface exposed to view, and gives more contrasting background for certain faint tree limbs on the left.
 
 Fig. 3. Cropped from Meier's #175, in
UFO...Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 1 (1979), p. 44.
Dashed lines added.
We can understand that, except in front of the craft’s superstructure, the saucer's sloping rim surface reflects the color of the cleaner sky farther above than that of the more polluted background sky. Hence a slight color contrast occurs that helps delineate the extent of the sloping saucer-rim surface. My estimate of the approximate location of the upper edge of the saucer-like surface on the left and right has been dashed in. On the left, two or more of the faint tree limbs do appear to cross in front of the sky-reflecting saucer rim. This is shown more graphically in Fig. 4 below.
 Fig. 4. Analysis by Sean Gibbons, H.Dip. Digital Media.
Meier's #175 bump mapped on image manipulation program 'Gimp'.
Although this bump-mapping analysis loses most of the contrast between the exposed saucer rim and background sky, by comparison with Fig. 3 one sees that two or three of the limbs on the left in Fig. 4 do have saucer-rim background. This strongly supports the 1979 observation by Tom Welch, from photo #175, that branches of the tree lie in front of the space craft (Lee & Brit Elders, UFO...Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 1, p.37).
 Fig. 5. . Cropped from Meier’s photo #174
available from Michael Horn's web site. Black circle
on left is centered around the partially eclipsed
far-left protuberence. Pointed out by Jeroen Jansen.
A blow-up from the third photo of the trio, #174, shown in Fig. 5, additionally exhibits eclipsing evidence from the thicker tree branch on the far left. It eclipses the left edge of the leftmost protuberance, which is not totally visible judging from the corresponding apparent width of the protuberence on the far right. And the lighter brown of the left edge of the tree limb contrasts slightly with the brownish-black of the protuberance. The fifth of these nine visible protuberances is very slightly to the right of center, so that the angular width of the first protuberance on the left, if it were not partially eclipsed, should be slightly greater, not less, than that of the ninth one on the right.
There should now (as of March, 2009) be little doubt of the genuineness of this trio of Meier’s photos. One does not need the originals in showing this, although the lower the generation of the print, the better. The craft was on the far side of the tree, whose existence and location when in leaf has been documented. The tree was about 150 ft away from the camera.
Meier’s other 31 surviving photos of this series, which show the very same beamship at greater distances from the camera and exhibit the expected haze effect, must then also be genuine.
Once this is realized, an even more amazing realization is that the UFO pilot, Semjase in this instance, was so skillful and creative in supplying Meier with photo opportunities that would not force negative skeptics and ufologists alike to accept the intolerable. This strategy, of plausible deniability, is seen throughout the Meier case and the UFO phenomenon as a whole; it allows the aliens involved to make their existence, presence and messages for us known to those who can accept it while not prematurely disrupting the UFO coverup.

FINAL PROOF MEIER'S UFO PHOTOS GENUINE!

FINAL PROOF MEIER'S UFO PHOTOS GENUINE!

You are about to be presented with, and perhaps even confronted by, clear and incontrovertible proof that the UFO photo and film evidence in the Meier case is authentic, unfalsified and irreproducible with the technology known to have been available to Billy Meier at the time that he presented his 35mm photographic, 8mm film and other physical evidence. It is also still irreproducible today, even with the best digital effects.
Whether you are a sophisticated photographic and visual/special effects expert, or simply a layman, the use of common sense alone will be sufficient for you to understand the authenticity, and importance, of the evidence that you will see. And, as already suggested, an honest application of technological expertise will reveal, and result in, the same findings.
The Skeptical Argument
The skeptical argument against Billy Meier's stunningly clear, "too good to be true", UFO photographs, films and video has been that Meier used model UFOs and also model, or miniature, trees to create his evidence. This was the original claim made by CFI-West/IIG, in 2001 when they accepted my challenge to duplicate just one of Meier's UFO photos and one of his films. Naturally, that is a challenge they have never been able to meet.
Their claims that Meier used such models to create what they referred to as "an esily duplicated hoax" were presented by their current lead investigator, Derek Bartholomaus, in his carefully scripted presentation in the Special Features section of our film, The Silent Revolution of Truth (now being released as The Billy Meier Story: UFOs and Prophecies from Outer Space). Subsequent to the release of the film, Mr. Bartholomaus was forced to retract his foundational claims regarding models, since he was completely unable (despite years of preparation) to produce any evidence for them, without so much as one photograph of a comparable model tree to support his assertions.
Further, his attempt to get Academy Award-winning Uncharted Territory to retract their statement regarding the virtual impossiblity that Meier used model UFOs was not only rebuffed, they clearly restated their same evaluation. So frustrated was Mr. Bartholomaus, when other examples of his incompetence and false claimes were revealed, that he then took to falsifying emails from me to try to distract from the implosion of his own demolished credibility.
A Final Attempt
The last individual to try to debunk Meier's photographic evidence, British skeptic Tony Wharton, tried to duplicate the photos and film/video with small models, predictably unimpressive as they are. But at least he tried.
Wharton chose one particular photo, known as the "Sunight UFO", in his final attempt at debunking and duplicating Meier's evidence. You'll notice that the last photo on that page shows a man standing next to a tree, which we say is the same tree in Meier's photo. In Meier's photo the tree is barren-branched, since the photographs were taken as winter was ending, in 1976. I should also point out that the photo is one of 34 in the Hasenböl series, which also includes stunningly clear photos of the UFO in earlier daylight hours, several of which can be seen here. Clicking on the photos, like this one, reveal the intricate detail of this craft.
See for Yourself
So as to present the final proof referred to in the title above, we first present this photo of the Sunlight UFO next to one of the barren-branched trees:


(You may also wish to see James Deardorff's precise, detailed examination and analysis of this photo that establish the proximity of the UFO to the tree.)
Now here is a video clip from the film "Beamship - The Movie Footage" (courtesy of Intercep/Genesis III, copyright 1985) that shows Meier and Jun-Ichi Yaoi, a director and investigator for NTV (Nippon TV) discussing the famous Hasenböl photos. Yaoi and Meier are shown, next to the trees,while visiting the actual, easily identifiable location where Meier took his photo series, years before. Please note that not only are the trees, which are now in full leafy bloom, exactly the same full-sized trees, but the mountains in the background are also seen to be exactly the same ones that appear in the photo:

Once again, please remember that everyone who has attacked the evidence in the case, from Kal Korff to CFI-West, from Derek Barholomaus and his associates at IIG, to James Randi and Michael Shermer, have all steadfastly claimed that Meier used both model UFOs and model trees. It should now be abundantly, irrefutably clear - to even the most hardcore skeptic - that those claims are now shown to be completely false and unsubstantiated. And, by establishing the trees as full-sized, it's clear that the UFO is not only not a model, it must be around 21' in diameter, as Meier has long maintained.
UPDATE!
Now that it is clear and obvious that the trees in the Hasenböl photo sequence were indeed full-sized, and that Meier didn't use a model UFO, we'll ice that cake (for those who still need it) with the following excerpt from a film of the Hasenböl UFO that Meier took on the same day that he took the photo series. Once again, this has been hidden in plain sight for a long time. In this clip you will see that the UFO emits two separate beams of coherent light - in broad daylight - something that would have been impossible to hoax. When I showed this film segment to the owners of Uncharted Territory, I told them that Vaughn Rees (the original case investigator for CFI-West/IIG, in 2001) had said that the light was "an effect created by scratching the negative with a pin".
This was soundly rejected by Volker Engel and Marc Weigert as clearly not being the case at all. They stated that they were, of course, quite familiar with that rather primitive technique but that it didn't apply here and they stated that the UFO itself was also not a small model. (Let's remember that both Engel and Weigert are also UFO skeptics!) One would be very hard pressed to find a compelling example of a similarly convincing special effect in a film segment from any space or science fiction movie up to that time - or even up to today. Note that most so-called spaceships/UFOs shown in films appear either at night or in simulated space scenes. Meier's film was taken during the daytime and includes a close-up of the UFO, showing its highly detailed construction.
Wendelle Stevens reported the following, on page 284 of the Preliminary Investigation Report:
“The analysts examining the movie footage from this last event were amazed to find that what at first looked like a flash of reflected sunlight from a part of the rim of the ship and an area of the dome, was in fact a projected beam of bright coherent white light from something. The beam is clearly seen and it is sharply distinct and does not spread out as it leaves the ship.”
Here then is a short clip from Meier's Hasenbol film so that you can clearly see the two white lights alternating flashing from the UFO.



While the overall quality of the clip isn't great, some of the lack of clarity of the UFO is due to it being a large object a good distance from the camera. Efforts by skeptics to duplicate this and other Meier films results in them having very sharp, clear images because they are using small models close to the camera.
As was stated here (where you'll find additional evidence for the authenticity of the Meier case): "Motivation seems missing for an unknown hoaxer in 1976 to have gone to the effort and expense to have remote-control technology be built into a never-discovered model UFO of complicated design, complete with lamps, battery and circuitry, just to flash its lights briefly."

Where Is the "UFO Community"?
The main question that remains is: why the terrible silence about the Meier case from the so-called "UFO community"? Even more to the point, why the deliberate suppression of the Meier case's authenticity and unparalleled importance by these groups, such as the Disclosure Project, PRG, "Exopolitics" and even MUFON? In truth, defeating the skeptics was a simple matter, as the evidence speaks loudly for itself. It only needed to be organized and presented and opportunities creatrops ed for the skeptics demonstrate their prejudice, incompetence and outright failure. But as it turns out the real enemies of revealing the truth are the ones who have created the most vocal - and self-serving - presence, the ones who carry on endlessly about "the extraterrestrail presence", "forcing the government to reveal the truth about UFOs", "alien abductions", etc., etc. - all without an iota of actual evidence, a shred of proof, to back up their nonsensical, delusional claims.
But one must remember that this has become an industry, an easy place for hucksters and opportunists (if not deliberate disinformation specialists) to ply their trade and prey on very willing, gullible people. With no real standards, with no real evidence except for the Meier case, which they avoid because they perceive that it would threaten their livelihoods and fame-seeking to acknowledge it, the noise makers run around exhorting people to "send a million faxes to Washington!" and to listen to delusional, mentally ill individuals who pretend to be contactees for extraterrestrials.
The Truth
The tragedy here is that the most important part of the Meier case, the spiritual teaching, the scientific, environmental and world event related information is delayed in reaching the inhabitants of earth for whom it is intended, to a large degree because of these selfish, petty and very envious individuals who do everything in their power to prevent its dissemination, including passively ignoring it though they know full well that it is there.
But for those who seek, love and value the truth, for those who are unselfish and who care about our world and all of its inhabitants, the truth is here. It is plain to see, it can be confirmed through common sense, as well as scientific examination. The only remaining question is, as always, now that you know the truth, what will you do with it and about it?

Saturday, December 10, 2011

CICADA Micro-Drones Open New Opportunities for Future Covert Surveillance

Tempest with CICADA 3
Tempest mothership carries two CICADA Mk3 micro drones. Photo: NRL
CICADA is a concept for a low-cost, GPS-guided, micro disposable air vehicle that can be deployed in large numbers to “seed” an area with miniature electronic payloads. These payloads could be interconnected to form an ad-hoc, self-configuring network. Communication nodes, sensors, or effectors can then be placed in a programmable geometric pattern in hostile territory without directly over-flying those regions or exposing human agents on the ground.
In September 2011 the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) successfully completed flight tests demonstrating how these miniature, disposable aerial vehicles can be used to emplace covert sensors on the ground. The ‘Autonomous Deployment Demonstration’ (ADD) conducted in September 2011 at the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona spanned over a series of eight balloon-drops at altitudes of up to 57,000 ft, delivering an unmanned ‘mothership’ UAV carrying two Close-In Covert Autonomous Disposable Aircraft (CICADA) vehicles on sensor-emplacement missions. The sensors were deployed across a distance of 30 nautical miles (55km) dispersing to assigned locations within 3 meter (15 feet) of their intended landing locations.
CICADA Mk3
The airframe of CICADA Mark III is the printed circuit board serving the autopilot. This novel construction method significantly reduces assembly time, minimizes wiring requirements, and enables the manufacture of low-cost and rugged micro air vehicles. The airframe shape is easily scaled to accommodate various payload sizes and potential acoustic, magnetic, chemical/biological and SIGINT sensors. Photo: NRL
CICADA is a small, disposable unmanned air vehicles launched from aircraft, balloons or precision-guided munitions. On a surveillance mission these mini drones are equipped with sensor payloads and dispersed in selectable patterns around designated areas. Essentially a flying circuit board, CICADA has an extremely high packing factor and a very low per-unit cost. Eighteen vehicles can be contained in a six-inch cube. The vehicle is inherently stable in glide, with a glide ratio of 3.5
“The CICADA is dropped from another airborne platform, flies to a single waypoint, and then enters an orbit. It descends in that orbit until it reaches the ground.” says Chris Bovais, aeronautical engineer and flight test coordinator, NRL Vehicle Research Section. “Many remote sensors are currently hand emplaced,” said Bovais. “The CICADA allows for the low-cost delivery of multiple precision-located sensors without placing the warfighter in harm’s way.”
The NRL developed CICADA Mark III UAV is a glider generating no acoustic or radar signature in flight. The airframe is basically the printed circuit board serving the autopilot. This novel construction method significantly reduces assembly time, minimizes wiring requirements, and enables the manufacture of low-cost and rugged micro air vehicles. The airframe shape is easily scaled to accommodate various payload sizes and potential acoustic, magnetic, chemical/biological and SIGINT sensors. Unique to this construction technique, additional electronic payloads can be inserted into the system by updating the printed circuit board artwork and ‘re-winging’ the aircraft. CICADA uses a custom autopilot and a two-axis gyro developed at the NRL Vehicle Research Section. The flight controller also included a custom NRL algorithm that accurately estimated wind speed and magnitude, despite having no air data sensors onboard, delivering accurate navigation with minimal sensors and control surfaces.
In development since 2006, CICADA offers a new method of deploying covert surveillance sensors from aircraft, unmanned vehicles, balloons or precision-guided munitions. An example of such dispersion concept shows scattering of disposable micro-UAV sensors from underwing pods carried by a C-130 hercules. Illustration: NRL

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Spielberg's 'E.T.' came close to being a horror

Spielberg's 'E.T.' came close to being a horror



One of the world’s most beloved family films – E.T. The Extraterrestrial – was very nearly a nightmarish horror; this according to the film’s director Steven Spielberg, who recently told Entertainment Weekly of his 1982 classic:

"It was going to be called Night Skies, based on a piece of UFO mythology... where a farm family reported little spindly grey aliens attacking their farm, even riding cows in the farmyard. This farm family basically huddled together for survival... It's a story that's well-known in the world of ufology, and we based our script on that story."

Spielberg is, of course, referring to the Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter of 1955, which is regarded as one of the most significant and bizarre UFO cases on record. It is also one of the best-documented.

Spielberg tells Entertainment Weekly that he even went so far as to hire legendary effects designer Rick Baker (An American Werewolf in London) to bring the impish Hopkinsville Kentucky aliens to life on the big screen, adding that E.T. only transformed into a family film when Harrison Ford's then-girlfriend Melissa Mathison came onboard to rewrite the screenplay. "Melissa didn't want to write it,” Spielberg says, “I needed Harrison and all of us to talk her into it.