In a previous article, I adumbrated what has recently become – for me – a key component in my quest for truth: the dire effects of ‘plausible deniability’, applied in multiple dimensions, to confuse and confound peoples’ world-view and thereby obfuscate any clandestine activities undertaken by ‘vested interests’ who would prefer that said activities remain obscure and – ideally – ignored and undetected by the wider public, who in one way or another are actually funding it all.

Time to wake up and smell the bullshit…

But first, some explanation of the term I intend to use here, for those who have not encountered it before. ‘Disambiguation’ refers to the process of separating out single meanings in situations where multiple meanings are able to apply. So for example, here in Korea, because the writing system is simplified (has only forty-four characters, and is therefore an ‘alphabet’ rather than a ‘syllabary’), a foreigner learning the language may often have to make reference to the corresponding Traditional Chinese* characters from which words are derived (in South Korea, roughly 70% of words in use in spoken Korean today are said to be of Traditional Chinese derivation) in order to separate out the correct meaning. This is because the transition from a complex syllabary to a simple alphabet leads to numerous homophones, where previously words (in this particular example) in Traditional Chinese would have been easier to distinguish because Chinese is a tonal language, and each lexeme is obviously separated from others which sound similar. Lexemes with the same sound are disambiguated by their different characters.


To bring this idea together with my current thinking, after many years of reading about UFOs and aerial phenomena generally (and this means my reading stretching back into the early 1970s, when many readers here were not yet born), a similar idea began to gnaw at me: after all, some of these, at least, must be natural, and there were hypotheses which hinted at this. But the study of apparently ‘unidentified’ aerial objects suffers from the same syndrome seen so often, where the observer’s ability (or lack thereof) to distinguish phenomena is hampered by lack of access to information – interpretations are flawed because of the limitations of knowledge imposed upon them, either by themselves (restricting the areas into which they can move for information) or by others (reading the pet theories of other individuals which are not supported by either observation or a logical framework based upon observation and existing information, or by a process of intentional and deliberate disinformation and misinformation). It is a sad fact that one of the hallmarks of a free and open system for information interchange – the Internet – is the anonymity which allows people to nurture and expound wild theories and speculation about any subject under the sun without any need – or indeed inclination – to engage critical faculties (Scott C. Waring, I’m talking about YOU). [8]

We might add to this lamentable picture our own observation that, given the requirement for gullibility on the part of their audience, there have been (and continue to be) a large number of individuals who have been profiting in the long term from the willingness of their listeners to cough up dosh to hear the same tired old mish-mash of reports and factoids which bedevil the UFO community (they know who they are, names need not be mentioned further). This is an area where much speculation results from the slightest possibility that a story might be true, despite the acknowledged fact that the only consistent aspect of the field is its inconsistency. Misinformation introduced at the right time results in long-term disorientation: satellite observations presented at the highest level of pixellation as proof of a civilisation on Mars, or the Moon, for example. Enough, already!

Observations have themselves been shown to be subject to a number of influences, one of which seems to be the curious habit of mirroring technologies with which the observers themselves might be familiar; commentators have speculated that this would allow the operators of such craft (when encountered by the observers) to pass themselves off as people like themselves, rather than obviously ‘alien’ or perhaps government operatives, a point elaborated by (among others) the late John Keel.

When investigating any phenomenon which might be described as ‘natural’ (and even if they originate on another planet, UFOs are not actually ‘unnatural’ in the sense of being ‘unreal’, but rather are ‘dislocated’ from their point of origin), we need to keep an open mind and be wary of the pitfalls of trying to fit observations into any new or pre-existing schema without good reason. This would be especially true in situations in which similar external characteristics might cause natural and unnatural (i.e., in this case, technology products) phenomena to be conflated. This is a very important point to bear in mind.

Again, this returns us to the notion of ‘plausible deniability’: being able – at least to some extent – to hide things (which ‘someone’ has decided, arbitrarily, need to be hidden) behind other phenomena which are actually natural is a very convenient form of obfuscation; the more so if they are objects which exhibit (or appear to exhibit) some advanced technology which is inexplicable in terms of conventional daily experience. We should be warned at the outset that UFOs are not the only phenomena to which this type of thinking may need to be applied. And since a ‘real’ UFO would undoubtedly be the product of technology which is both highly advanced and (perhaps) literally ‘alien’ in concept, we are faced with four or five essential classes of observable phenomena:

1: natural phenomena, possibly of an electrical nature, which persist for some time in the atmosphere and are, in fact, created by a combination of natural events. Among other things, we should refer to Paul Devereux’s ‘Earth Lights Hypothesis’ and the ‘Electric Universe Hypothesis’ to discuss these. There may also be a ‘cryptid’ involvement in these.

2: technology products of purely terrestrial origin, which probably represent exotic manned or unmanned vehicles, and which may even have quite mundane intended functions, but which look or behave strangely to the untrained and unfamiliar observer.

3: technology products of extraterrestrial origin, relatively exotic crewed or uncrewed vehicles which may have relatively mundane functions such as observation platforms, but which may be engaged in scientific or military (as we understand the terms) functions. Little of the information which becomes available to the observer during encounters would be familiar enough for them to understand the technology, the intention of the operators or the intended function of these devices. This much would remain true, whatever their actual origin may be.

4: the objects represent living entities of an unknown type, who are able to hide normally but who become visible at certain times, under certain conditions. Again, a potential ‘cryptid’ involvement which is often suggested in discussions of this topic.

5: most contentiously perhaps, and supported largely by rumour and speculation, technology products of terrestrial origin but modelled after examples of (allegedly ‘captured’) extraterrestrial equivalents, intended for various purposes but built entirely terrestrially, although possibly with the assistance of the ‘originators’. This grouping includes alleged ‘reverse-engineered’ craft, of which there seem to be many stories and typical locations where they are seen and stored when not in use. However, when considering this latter classification, we should always bear in mind the ‘alleged’ part!

It is not my purpose here to engage in an exhaustive categorisation of UFO types. Rather, my interest is to discuss the desirability of separating them out – to apply ‘disambiguation’ to them – from natural phenomena. Our first call should be to two theories which are undoubtedly closely intertwined: the ‘Earth Lights’ theory and the ‘Electric Universe’ theory, and for reasons which will become clear as we proceed, we will visit the second of these first.

One of the most bizarre aspects of so-called ‘modern science’ is the extent to which, when confronted with new data which contradict existing models, practitioners engage in a kind of ‘cognitive dissonance’ and refuse point-blank to accept the notion of falsification of their cherished hypothesis. The extent to which a practising scientist will doggedly stick to trying to ‘verify’ a theory when evidence is pointing in a completely different direction is both touching and pathetic. But there are two very important points to be borne in mind when practising science:

1: In science, the most essential part of any hypothesis is that it should be falsifiable. This is because the closer the hypothesis comes to verisimilitude – a closer and closer approximation to reality – the better able it becomes to predict previously unsuspected or unobserved phenomena. If there is an accumulation of data which are observed regularly in the course of investigation and experimentation, but which cannot be explained by the hypothesis, it must eventually be considered ‘falsified’ and replaced by another competing hypothesis which does account for these data, or ‘anomalies’ as they were called by Thomas S. Kuhn (among others). It would not be inappropriate to suggest that since verisimilitude cannot be approached directly, but rather in a prolonged and stepwise fashion due to the periodic falsification of successive hypotheses, one hypothesis has to be judged against the other in terms of accounting for a greater proportion of these ‘anomalies’ than its predecessor – but not all of them. It is the basic and essential function of a successful hypothesis to account for more of the observed phenomena than its predecessor. The succeeding hypothesis would probably be able to subsume the original observational data more accurately within its new conceptual framework.

2: Human beings are very prone to try to fit information into frameworks or ‘schemas’. The problem with this is that there are many factors involved as to exactly where in any theoretical framework any phenomenon should be placed. The above example of Korean (or Japanese) simplification versus Traditional Chinese exactitude illustrates exactly the kind of pitfall waiting for us when our interpretation is wrong, and why it is so important to check. Good science has (or should have) a variety of hypotheses, competing to interpret the same data, some of which are more likely to be a closer approximation to reality than others, and which therefore have the equal and automatic right to be heard and used as tools in investigations.

We might add to these that the more extreme the individual practitioner’s professional isolation becomes, the less they are likely to be able to import ideas from other fields which might bear fruit in their own investigations – indeed, this is a process which is discouraged in many organisations, and was a hallmark of paranoid twentieth-century military thinking from the beginning of World War II onwards, with all the disastrous consequences we have seen. Prior to that time, it was considered normal for scientists and technologists working in disparate areas to discuss what they were doing and what their research had discovered, but now we seem to have a situation in which discussion only takes place within a group of professionals, and others (who might be able to contradict them, or at least promote plausible alternatives) are excluded and marginalised. In America, this process of ‘compartmentalisation’ really appears to have taken off under the oversight of Vannevar Bush in the ‘Manhattan Project’ [2].

This is the fundamental malady of modern science: the practitioner’s lack of tolerance for (and the necessary consideration of) hypothetical competition. It accounts, perhaps only in part, for why modern science is so divorced from reality and appears to see the public only as a source of income. Supported through tax dollars levied upon the wider populace, the modern scientist builds a vast paradigmatic empire, but because this is science, that empire is built upon shifting sand; no matter how successful a paradigm may prove, the accumulation of anomalous (from the paradigm’s point of view) data must eventually cause its collapse. Addiction to the group paradigm – which may be used to argue for extensive public funding, for example – will continue until that group is actually forced to admit exactly what part (or the whole) of their paradigm is incorrect. The field is then (theoretically at least) open for succession.

At the same time, practising scientists clearly see the general public as ‘ignorant’ and in need of education – their education – by inculcation into a paradigm which is probably shaky at best, but which needs a ‘critical mass’ (i.e. sufficient magnitude of quorum) of popular support to avoid being denied funding. In concert with the mass media (whose practitioners, of course, are also not specialists, and therefore depend upon science for their material, and follow it largely blindly), practitioners persistently and rabidly promulgate their ‘party line’ and often are happy to indulge in pathetic ad hominem attacks upon opponents when logic fails – a rather strange practice from those who would have us believe that science is impartial, evidence-based and can provide all the answers to our questions, and surprisingly like the kind of reaction one would expect from a True Believer when their ability or patience abandons them in the face of hostile criticism – this latter being precisely the kind of public reaction which is so useful when it swings in their favour. Practitioners should be more intellectually honest, and admit it when they cannot answer because they do not know, rather than trying to cover it up with dissemblance and misdirection.

So science as it is normally (in the Kuhnian sense) practised may be interesting, amusing or entertaining, but as an important part of science is actually to be incorrect (which allows progress by later falsification and verisimilitude), it cannot be taken one hundred percent seriously – especially when it says, for example, that it needs huge public funding to split small atoms. It simply represents one small ‘area of knowledge’, possibly false according to the particular (peculiar? remember phlogiston!) interpretation of the times, and must therefore take its place beside other sources of ‘knowledge’ and compete to be heard. The usefulness of science ends when the knowledge it produces no longer has any practical value or, worse still, leads to dangerously incorrect interpretations of the natural world because of a pathetic and petulant refusal to accept that an accumulation of experimental and observational data have proven it to be wrong. Instead, it has become a cult. No more evidence would be required to demonstrate that ‘science’ is actually a ‘religion’.

The case of UFOs shows some of the worst attitudes prevalent in science, although one could point in other directions such as – for example – ‘cryptozoology’. Here however, we begin with the ‘Electric Universe’ hypothesis. According to this, the universe is suffused with plasma, and this plasma, being highly conductive, allows huge electrical currents to traverse cosmic distances, and the behaviour of this electrical current in the cosmic medium is responsible for forming all large, observable objects. And there is plenty of laboratory-based evidence for all of it. [10]

We know that the universe is composed of 99% plasma, and this was basically confirmed by the Explorer-1 satellite [1] launched by NASA in 1958. Ironically, America’s first successful artificial satellite, lofted into orbit in response to the success of Russia’s Sputnik I, produced data which contradict the entrenched scientific notion that Earth somehow exists in splendid isolation and is somehow not connected to the rest of the universe by anything other than gravity.

Let’s take careful note of this: a universe dominated by the presence and conductivity of plasma cannot behave in a way dominated by terrestrial processes. ‘Terrestrial processes’ exist only on Earth – that is why they are called ‘terrestrial’, or has nobody noticed this? And if the universe is dominated by electricity, we should be asking ourselves what the effects of this ought to be upon our lives. We should observe direct and indirect effects of massive current flow on a regular basis; and the magnitude of the observed effects is indicative of the strength of current flow.

This means that, historically: (a) there is a variety of effects which have been recorded which relate to our small part of the galaxy, which result from a wider flow of plasma-borne current which surrounds us, and (b) the force with which these effects manifest themselves changes as a result of the localised passage of current through the solar system, in much the same way that, say, the brightness of a bulb in a building can vary because of all the switches in said building being turned on and off all the time. In the Electric Universe context, stars are born in strings (because of the gross structure of a ‘Birkeland current’) and are connected electrically by intervening plasma. Their brightness can therefore vary according to the current load, like any terrestrial light bulb or other functional resistor.

The amazing thing is that this flow of current, and the effects which follow on from it, have been completely ignored at worst, or deliberately misinterpreted (to fit the prevailing paradigms) at best by scientific practitioners. As Kuhn rightly pointed out, the problem with ‘normal science’ is that established practitioners are more concerned with ‘verifying’ the theories they espouse, rather than challenging it and getting closer to the truth. They are afraid of threatening the existence of the thing which pays their salary, afraid of losing public funding for their temporary flim-flam (as any state in science is purely temporary), and afraid of losing credibility because they got it wrong, rather than challenging the theory and proving that their new hypothesis displays greater verisimilitude than what went before. Too much money and too many reputations and institutions are at stake when they do that. If there is one thing about modern science that is truly lamentable, it is that scientists are more likely to be gladiatorial in defence than attack. That is truly shameful.

It is ‘really coming to something’ when a famous American Bible scholar can produce videos which give a more accurate account of observations – and give appropriate credit to non-Christians who see things more clearly:

Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing: the prevailing theoretical cosmogeny is utter and contemptible rubbish. We exist at the end of a process, not at its beginning, therefore we cannot make anything but the wildest guesses at what went before unless there is some kind of written or oral record of past events, and what is available must be scrutinised and cross-checked if possible to avoid errors. But if the paradigm we use is itself false, then there cannot be any correct interpretation of what we see; it is impossible because we have tied ourselves to a particular viewpoint, and we are not willing to venture outside of that claustrophobic conceptual straitjacket. Whatever his other faults might have been, the late Dr. Isaac Asimov was quite correct when he suggested that the concepts used to interpret an observational phenomenon were more problematic than the observation itself, whatever that original observed object or phenomenon may have been.

According to the current conventional Western cosmogony, the Solar System of which we are a part is supposed to have condensed out of a cloud of hydrogen and dust. Because of the use of isotope ratios to determine age, there is an upper limit to the age of the Earth of less than 5,000,000,000 years [4]. The accretion process is supposed to have been gravitational, with smaller bodies coalescing into larger ones until we have what we see today. But common sense suggests that if the Electric Universe theory is correct, then this process is impossible because any particles in any particular area of space would have very similar electrostatic charges, and would therefore repel each other; hence gravitational coalescence is unlikely. A more powerful force is required to coalesce disparate particles of matter to form large, solid objects.

A second argument against gravitation being responsible for what we see is the thermal activity of the outer planets. Space is very cold, and as we travel further out from the sun, the available radiance per unit area on any planet decreases proportionally. Yet we can see that the outer planets have very high-speed winds and enormous storms. Conventional science cannot account for this beyond suggesting that (in the case of Jupiter, for example) this is because of heat resulting from the eternally slow gravitational contraction of the planet, or to radioactive heat emanating slowly from the core. The possibility of another source of energy than the decay of radionucleides at the core of a planetary body is apparently never voiced in official astronomical circles. Neptune, however, is the furthest of the gas giants from the Sun, yet it has the highest observed wind speeds! [5] All of them radiate more heat energy than they are known to receive from the sun. [9]:

• Jupiter: radiates 1.5 – 2 times the energy it receives from the Sun. Excess left over from formation (cooling cake model).

• Saturn: radiates 2-3 times the energy it receives from the Sun. Excess comes from frictional heating from raining liquid helium.

• Neptune: radiates 2.6 times the energy it receives from the Sun. Excess comes either from frictional heating from raining diamonds or from gravitational contraction of debris absorbed by Neptune in the early days of the Solar System.

• Uranus: radiates 1.06 times the energy it receives from the Sun. Excess left from formation.

We might additionally be tempted to ask exactly where the required quantity of radionucleides might have originated which would be required to generate the necessary internal heat within our Solar System’s ‘gas giants’. If stars and their satellites are generated by electrical mechanisms, would larger planetary bodies really need such a method of generating internal heat, or is it actually because they are functioning rather like resistors in a larger electrical circuit?

According to the Electric Universe theory, our sun is an electric node in a galactic circuit, and is variable because the magnitude of the galactic electric current flowing through it also varies with time. Similarly, the planets are affected as conductive components in a circuit, and exhibit effects such as heating (take note of this, it’s important) which result from this. One of the most basic experiments in physics is simply to pass a current through a conductor and measure its temperature; the functions of light bulbs, electric fan heaters and even simple plug fuses are based upon the effects of this. The resistance of the conductive material to the flow of current produces heat and (with higher current) light.

Here is where current cosmology seems to fall flat on its collective face. Rather than take into account the possibility that much of what they are observing relates to the flow of electrical current through the Solar System and base their interpretation of observed phenomena upon an electrical paradigm, astrophysicists, cosmologists and other space scientists have put themselves into some kind of intellectual backwater by postulating the presence of unseen, undetectable ‘Dark Matter’ which somehow permeates everything and mysteriously accounts for phenomena which would more accurately be described as ‘electrical’ in nature. So the outward flow of particles from the Sun is characterised as a ‘solar wind’ rather than an ‘electrical current’ (currents need charged particles to ‘flow’) between the electrodes of a virtual cell, where the Sun is actually one of these.

The ‘Earth Lights’ theory follows logically from the ‘Electric Universe’ theory, and surprisingly, perhaps, also complements it, at least in part. Since the Earth is under constant electrical stress, relief of that stress would result in electrical discharge, in much the same way that compressing a quartz crystal releases energy as electricity or light [3], or the charge in a thunderstorm relieves itself by large-scale lightning discharge. But here we come to one of the problems of interpretation of phenomena. Such discharges seem sometimes to give rise to a form of ball lightning which is (for some time at least) self-sustaining and can travel for some distance from its point of discharge, presumably guided by localised surface charges in its surroundings, which it finds alternately attractive and repulsive.

Balls of plasma seem at times to appear from nowhere, even emerging from the ground or from bodies of open water when conditions are apparently right for them. They are seen more easily at night, but if certain suppositions are correct and so-called ‘UFOs’ possessing a uniform grey colouration during daylight hours are the same objects, then this could explain a great deal. Most importantly, science (and even more importantly, perhaps, a lot of UFO ‘believers’) would be forced to admit that these were natural phenomena and begin investigating them properly at last rather than as an occasional curiosity. You can’t seriously suggest to this author that such a widespread phenomenon is even remotely ‘harmless’ to air traffic!

The energy of the discharge is what gives it its colour, and again, this is relevant to the ‘Electric Universe’ theory because here, the colour or brightness of a star is not related to its size or composition, but to the localised electrical stress to which it is subjected by the ambient galactic current. So higher energy input corresponds to an output of increasingly blue-wavelength light, and low energy input to an output of increasingly red-wavelength light; and we note that accounts of these objects at night (UFOs, not stars, in this particular case) cover a range of colours, whereas similar objects during the day, subjected to bright sunlight, are said to appear a metallic grey colour. This is a clear indication that we must be careful when we try to interpret any phenomena of this type. It is interesting that some night-time UFOs are often said to exhibit (a) different colours of light, and (b) colours which change correspondingly with their activity. Interestingly, there seems to be plenty of observational evidence that some UFOs, at least, have some form of electrical-gravitic propulsion system – assuming that they are guided craft rather than natural phenomena.

The beginnings of an obfuscatory system begin to arise before our eyes. Since these localised, ball-lightning phenomena have been known from antiquity, they are not in fact unfamiliar. Technology products which use a similar mechanism for levitation and aerial motion can therefore be dismissed as something else, hence plausibly denied. The point of which being that a technology product can therefore be distanced from oneself, i.e. the obfuscating party, by keeping such things obscure, mysterious and remote in technological terms from the befuddled observer. It has not escaped this author’s attention that visual observations are usually at the limit of resolution (i.e. observable distance) due either to the resolving power of the observer’s eyes or that of any recording device (such as a cell phone camera) which they happen to have to hand when the object is sighted, a situation which the gradual (and by now virtually complete) transition from light-sensitive film to CCD technology has not improved. Another problem relating to more modern technology is that, when zooming in on a distant object, the actual shape of the object is completely lost as the light passing through to the sensor is stopped down by the iris diaphragm; the result is often a diamond shape, and this is only confirming that the camera is working properly!

There is another connected phenomenon which should be mentioned. As mentioned above, a theoretical upper limit is placed upon the possible age of the Earth, based upon what can be observed, and similarly for the universe itself. In the case of the latter, one branch of ‘evidence’ is said to be the ‘cosmic microwave background’, which is supposed to be akin to an ‘echo’ of the ‘Big Bang’ (to use the late Fred Hoyle’s comical term). One thing we notice in scientific accounts generally is the tendency to try and fix some kind of ‘datum line’ to events, in much the same way as the birth of Christ was taken by Christians, so that each year thereafter was referred to as ‘in the Year of Our Lord . . .’. But history, even in the debased and conveniently sanitised version presented to us, clearly did not begin with the birth of Christ; that, however, is an issue for another discussion. We merely note here that the ‘Big Bang’ is an hypothesis resting upon very shaky (and clearly falsifiable) foundations; and that excessive expenditure upon experimental equipment cannot produce ‘facts’ when the underlying data contradict the theory. So attempts to estimate the age of the Earth can only be as good as the methodology used, and if that methodology should prove unsound . . . the data produced are nonsense. Think about that the next time you hear an expression like: “The age of X has been reliably dated to Y by carbon dating.”

The reason why the ‘cosmic microwave background’ might not be allowable is simply this: As mentioned above, according to NASA’s own measurements, the universe is 99% plasma. Plasma conducts electricity, therefore massive amounts of electricity are constantly passing through virtually every point in the cosmos. The passage of electrical current through a conductive material produces magnetic fields, and we are talking here about massive currents passing through huge conductors. High-energy magnetic fields produce radiation. So electromagnetic radiation – including microwaves – can be produced anywhere, at any time, and therefore cannot be adduced to be evidence of anything except the presence of plasma, currents and magnetic fields at the moment of observation, in the location in which it is observed. Er . . . that’s it.

So we might ask why it is that a sort of ‘artificial event horizon’ (to co-opt a term from astronomy and cosmology) could be thought so necessary? The answer is that it is a kind of mind control – an artificial temporal and psychological barrier beyond which it is not deemed necessary for the ordinary mind to go, at least in the minds of those who would control us. We become more easily controlled by being divorced from the true past, in which context we would see everything as it really is – unnatural and unreal, and . . . controlled. Remember that previously, we began to understand that history as we know it is only partly true, due to a combination of selective destruction and wilful fabrication; and the provision of an artificial datum line, as well as an artificial time line originating therefrom, is all part of this. Obfuscation, fabrication, and plausible deniability have given us the world we know today; a world in which one phenomenon is hidden behind another, and whole areas of phenomenology are frozen completely out of any scientific discussion, simply to prevent the collapse of careers and industries which are of debatable utility to general humanity, and which we probably do not need . . . and probably never did in the first place. Oh, but they do generate an awful lot of profit!

The simple fact is that once one part of the puzzle falls out of place, once one card in the dubious house of cards buckles and flips out, the rest follows. For example: What would undermine the use of radioisotope pairs in the determination of the ages of rocks? It would be if the isotopes used had an origin different from that which is assumed by conventional science. And how would that happen? It would happen if they were actually created at an earlier time, by stupendous and catastrophic electrical events, events which encompassed and bathed the entire solar system, affecting all things therein equally, but probably later in time than the dating method would seem to indicate. This would mean that the origin of those isotopes was instantaneous at some point in time, and even that the matrix in which they were formed may not have been pre-existing. This might also explain why large collections of discrete crystals are usually to be found buried in rocks.

But it would also represent an artificial ‘datum line’ of destruction; perhaps it destroyed everything on Earth that it encountered and left only broken remains and rubble behind; again, a notion we should bear in mind when we see the shattered surfaces of other planets and moons and – almost certainly – when we observe the large-scale structures of our own Earth. The destruction of visible history would lead naturally to the construction of fables in the mind of those who came afterwards. And later, some form of ‘rationalism’ would be instigated when it was realised that the survival of past events in metaphorical or legendary form could be used to obfuscate those events, using the claim that they were ‘unscientific’ and ‘mere folklore’ (or other convenient expressions to that effect). But this only serves to show us that the rise of ‘rationalism’ after the Middle Ages is an attempt to hide and disguise whatever message was being passed down to us by folklore. And that is mind control.

If so-called ‘UFOs’ are in fact natural, as some have speculated, how might we explain their sudden appearances? The origins of ‘Earth Lights’ may well be due to the release of localised geo-electrical stresses (as seen in some of the work of Dr. Michael Persinger [6]). Interestingly, a similar proposition has more recently been made regarding the so-called ‘Hessdalen Lights’, which have been the subject of ongoing research for many years (see, for example, [7]). In the context of the ‘Electric Universe’, such a release of energy on a large scale is proposed to lead to an overall decrease of electrical stresses on a larger body by forcing fission into a larger and smaller one – the charge is then spread over a greater surface area, but also this necessarily leads to the formation of a smaller body, and hence, this could be the simplest mechanism for the formation not only of planets from their parent stars, but also smaller bodies from their parent planets (think ‘the moons of Jupiter’). This illustrates the scalability of electrical phenomena, and it is also disconnected from any ‘Uniformitarian’ notion based upon the observation of purely ‘terrestrial’ phenomena; as stated previously, phenomena based upon the prevalent conditions at the Earth’s surface cannot be invoked for other known celestial bodies, many of which do not have an atmosphere or even conditions suitable for liquid water!

Since modern science is largely based upon ‘Uniformitarian’ principles, the whole enterprise is undermined when these are challenged. And since the universe is actually open to anyone who cares to observe it, when challenging observations arise, the only way to maintain the status quo is to insist that they cannot be true “because [insert mainstream scientific garbage here].” By obfuscation of the boundaries of reality and illusion, this status quo is maintained, but for how much longer, as the prevalence of both conflicting data and emerging paradigms becomes crushing?

If people were really well-educated, they would accept the possibility that there could be more than a single possible interpretation for any single observation or phenomenon; they would question things more openly because their minds were correspondingly open to new ideas. But modern ‘education’ seems to be part of a larger effort to delimit the margins of possible thinking, so that the kind of ‘disambiguation’ promulgated here is difficult, if not downright impossible; and what passes as ‘knowledge’ is merely the ability to memorise and regurgitate indoctrinated ‘factoids’ on demand. But this would imply, would it not, that so-called ‘science’ was in fact little more than ‘pseudo-science’ itself, because its practitioners were wilfully skirting and avoiding any discussion of important parts of wider reality, which anyone can see in their daily lives, and trying constantly to fob people off with pat answers just to get them off the practitioners’ backs?

So we approach the end of this diatribe by returning to the observations of UFOs. The key issue here is not whether they exist; the problem is that there is (and always has been) acknowledged to be a small percentage of observations which conventional thinking is unable (or unwilling) to separate out into ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’, and my contention here has been, firstly, that this is part of a long-term arrangement to hide or otherwise disguise ‘something’ by obscurity and obfuscation, which by rights should have been ‘disambiguated’ from other phenomena long ago; and secondly, that this is preventing the progression of science at the paradigmatic level due to the steadfast but dogmatic and illogical refusal to encompass and assimilate changes which would lead naturally to a more objective view of the universe, and not just our own meagre cosmic backyard. Unknown objects observed in the sky exist, and we can be quite certain that they are not all piloted by beings from another galaxy; but all too often, agents of scientific (or other) authority are not explaining them properly. Either they don’t know because there has been insufficient publicly-funded research (and I would start to worry about this if I were a regular airline passenger), or we are being willingly misled according to some unknown ‘agenda’ which is trying to keep something secret. Whichever it may be, it is the population’s collective intelligence which is being insulted at all levels.

* It is of interest to note that after the Revolution, a process was put into practice to ‘simplify’ Chinese characters, ostensibly with the aim of increasing literacy by reducing the number and visual complexity of traditional characters, but some of us find this suspicious . . . and obfuscatory. One obvious result being, of course, the eventual inability to read an ‘older’ version of one’s own language, if one is a native Chinese speaker. Does this mean, then, that the millions of documents in their archives, which were written in Traditional Chinese, will eventually become illegible?

[1] http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/MissionToThePlanets/Explorer1/Explorer1.php

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush

[3] http://rockartblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/lightning-stones-and-quartz.html

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune

[6] http://persingerpublications.com/, click on links as required to see materials.

[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2632650/Has-mystery-glowing-Norwegian-orbs-solved-Expert-claims-underground-battery-creates-amazing-light-show.html

[8] http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com

[9] http://m.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/Thermal-Radiation-from-Gas-Giant-Planets

[10] https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080124bostick.htm