Our scientists: and this includes the most eminent among them, are telling us that mankind is not alone in the Cosmos.
(Source for Professor Hawking's quote: http://journalofcosmology.com/Aliens100.html)
And you will already, no doubt, be aware of where I stand on the UFO/extraterrestrial visitation issue: I know for a fact that aliens are visiting Planet Earth.
Most scientists – on the other hand – would disagree with my position. They argue that the immense distances between star systems precludes us from ever being visited by other, advanced civilizations.
The thing is though, our scientists haven't, themselves, ruled out the possibility that – at some point in the (not too distant) future – they will, themselves, develop the technology that will take mankind to the stars.
Please check out these links:
Okay, so science doesn't exclude the possibility that mankind will – eventually - possess the technology that will enable us to travel between star systems. And the timescale over which we will – according to the scientists – develop this capability is a matter of just a couple of centuries: not much time at all in the overall scheme of things.
So what are we to make of this? Are we expected to believe that aliens cannot, ever, come here; but one day we will be able to go there. This all sounds a little contradictory don't you think?
And the contradictions become positively bizarre when other factors are taken into account. What we need to bear in mind here is that the Milky Way Galaxy* is thought to be 13.6 billion years old - whilst our Solar System has only been around for a paltry 3.5 billion years. (Not to mention that mankind only emerged on Planet Earth a mere 200,000 years ago.) Aliens could, then, be billions of years older than mankind and possess billions more years worth of technological advancement over and above anything possessed by us. So – we have to ask – for how long has ET been beavering away developing star drive technology?
(* There's also more galaxies out there – some older than the Milky Way – than we can count.)
Consequently, when these facts are taken into consideration, where does it leave the stone cold certainty with which our scientists assert that ET could never make the journey? I would argue: in tatters. Further to this, I would also argue that they have no right to make such sweeping assertions. For even they would admit that the absence of evidence proves nothing either way. The most that they could, in truth, assert is that – as individuals – they haven't seen any evidence so would be disinclined to think that Planet Earth was being visited by extraterrestrial lifeforms. In other words, they are entitled to express an individual opinion: nothing more. So when they present us with an opinion masquerading as scientific fact; and when they use their academically polished gravitas to give weight to this 'fact', they are doing us: and the search for truth, a calculated disservice.
Luckily, for those seeking the truth however, not all scientists see things the same way.
(Source for Dr Michio Kaku's quote: http://mkaku.org/home/articles/the-physics-of-interstellar-travel/ )
Once you've read Dr Kaku's article you will understand that he believes star travel to be entirely feasible (although difficult to achieve), and doesn't rule out that Planet Earth is, indeed, being visited by extraterrestrials/UFOs. (To be clear: nor has he ever, to my knowledge, stated that we are being visited by them either.)
Dr Kaku's article also sets out categories of UFO sighting which he deems "harder to dismiss". Among these are sightings that involve multiple witnesses:
Here's an example:
And sightings reported by expert: IE military, witnesses. Please watch:
You need to watch both of these movies. You need to understand that extraterrestrials are involving themselves in human affairs and appear to be expressing concern about the direction in which our technology is taking us. Their primary concern would seem, understandably, to be with our nuclear weapons technology.
They are not – either – alone in their concerns.
We also have the Atomic Scientists: those responsible for setting the Doomsday Clock, who are telling us that we are now closer to the Dawn of Doomsday than we have ever been before. They are saying that we have only three minutes left. Then it all ends – mankind will erase himself from the cosmological time-line – and it will be like we never existed at all. For nobody will be left to remember us.
My Friends, we need to listen to what we are being told: by both the Atomic Scientists and our brothers and sisters from the stars.
So what's it to be? Do we choose survival are do we cast ourselves into the abyss?
If you choose survival, if you choose Universal Peace, then please sign the Universal Peace Petition.
Please use this link:
If you choose the abyss – then it's high time you said your goodbyes.
Acknowledgments and links:
Many thanks to:
Professor Stephen Hawking
Dr Michio Kaku for their ongoing search for the truth (as they see it).
Image sources (with thanks):
Dr Michio Kaku:
The author of this work claims fair (non-commercial) use: with regard to all materials used, in the interests of open and informed debate.
Question: when is a meteor not a meteor?
Answer: when it is seen to be performing manoeuvres that are impossible for a lump of inanimate rock to perform.
Please take a look at the picture below.
If you look carefully at this drawing - and study what some of the 'meteors' illustrated are shown to be doing – then compare this with the hard facts known about the behaviour of actual meteors; you will be forced to the conclusion that some of the objects depicted here cannot be meteors. They cannot be meteors because they are performing manoeuvres that lumps of inanimate rock cannot possibly perform.
Now, before we move on, I would ask you to pay close attention to the amount of detail shown in this image. Look at the clearly outlined shrubbery shown in the foreground. Make note of the expertly drawn reflections of the descending meteors in the waters of the lake to the right. I ask you to do this as I will be returning to this image (or another version of it to be more precise) at the end of this article.
I would also ask you to pay careful attention to the way in which the artist here (I'll be introducing him to you later ) has pictured the majority of the meteors. That is: behaving in typical meteoric fashion, following a curved parabola to earth.
We can now begin examining the anomalies. Please watch this slide show.
With this sequence I've isolated (with box-outs) two of the anomalous 'meteors' that you need to be focussing on. One is clearly shown executing a right angle turn manoeuvre – while the other appears to have changed direction completely - and decided to go back up, after swooping down low, just above the lake. (NB. Please note: there appears to be two 'meteors' performing this 'low swoop' - in coordination with each other - in the original image.
Now for the box-outs. You can see that I've picked out certain features with star bursts. These star bursts are intended to draw your attention to the fact that these 'meteors' possess both a 'head', and a 'tail'. Let me explain. Most meteors, or shooting stars, are mere specks of dust that come in from space and burn up with a flash – often in less than a second - as they hit the upper atmosphere. Others are much longer lived. These are rocks: of varying sizes, that penetrate much deeper into our atmosphere at high speed: typically 36,000 mph or faster. The friction caused by their passage through the air causes these rocks to heat up and glow. This friction also abrades the surface of the rock/meteor so that a glowing tail of hot meteoritic material/dust forms in its wake.
This is what you are looking at in the image above: meteors that all feature both a 'head' (the rock) and a 'tail'. I'm stressing this because there are those that would have you believe otherwise. Some people will tell you that the – apparent – right angle turn shown here: and both the 'U' shaped upswings, are the result of a meteor generated phenomenon known as a 'persistent train' being distorted by the wind.
OK. Let's have a look at this. So the anomalous shapes/tracks we see are the reult of wind distortion acting upon just three of the many meteor tracks shown. Really. What about the rest? Why aren't they all affected by the wind?
Now listen up. There probably are wind distorted 'persistent trains' featured in this drawing of the 1868 Leonid Meteor Storm. You will find them indicated by arrows in the sequence. These aren't clouds.
It's about time we took a closer look at these persistent trains – don't you think?
Now if you google the term: 'persistent trains', you will come across different interpretations, here's just a couple.
Persistent trains are the vaporized remains of the tiny meteoroid. The dust is blown around by upper level winds in Earth’s atmosphere.
The Free Dictionary
The luminous trail of ionized particles left by a meteor and visible to the naked eye for periods typically less than one second.
For something really technical (this is an actual research paper available for download) try this:
(NB. If you download and read this pdf you will find out that researchers sometimes fire sampling rockets into the tails of meteors to gather dust particles for analysis.)
But what does a persistent train actually look like?
Looks like a lightning strike doesn't it. Well, this is hardly surprising. Both lightning strikes and persistent trains are composed of highly energetic charged particles. Or, to put it another way, both are plasmas. And there's also another commonality shared by them: they can both be 'seen' on radar screens.
(NB. In some cases persistent trains have continued emitting VHF radio waves for over ten minutes: IE long after disappearing from view in the visible spectrum.)
The image above is actually the first in a series of sixteen captured by members of the International Meteor Organization (IMO) during an expedition to Mongolia in 1998.
Here's the complete series:
If you visit the webpage in question ( here's the link: http://www.imo.net/video/examples/example5 ) you will discover that the 16 images: which are sequential, illustrate the formation of a persistent train. Or do they? Something else you will discover on the International Meteor Organizations' website is that this sequence was shot with a video camera: so where's the movie? They do provide a link to an MP4 purportedly showing this sequence but the link didn't work (all l got is a 'page not found' message). In fact, most of the internal links on the IMO's site didn't work either. Try them, you might have better luck than me.
All is not, however, lost. I really wanted to view these 16 frames in the manner intended by the guy that filmed them. So I decided to indulge in a little re-animation. I hope you like the result.
(NB. The green screen indicates the end/start of the sequence.)
There seems to be a lot going on here doesn't there. Now when viewing this unusual event do you see what I see: structure, for instance? Do you see articulated cohesion, perhaps? This particular 'persistent train' does seem to 'hang-together': even if only briefly, as it develops - don't you think?
We need to take a closer look at this. Let's start breaking things down. This phenomenon appears to feature distinct sections that are joined together by two pivot points. So let's give these names for easy reference.
Okay. We have our sections and the pivot points that join them together.
Next we need to look at the way in which the different sections of our 'arm' move/articulate in relation to each other.
This next image illustrates the starting positions – and the directions in which they will begin to move - of the different sections.
(NB. Please note: when I'm using terminology such as: ascending, descending, up, down ETC – I'm refering to what we are seeing on screen – this mightn't, necessarily, equate with how the 'train' moved across [?] the sky.)
We now need to watch the sequence again.
What you need to watch for:
What then, are the red arrows showing us?
Let's deal with the arrow to the left of the screen first. Here we appear to be seeing an object that has become detached from the plasma structure, that tags along with it for a while as it moves downwards, and then becomes stationary as the train continues to descend. Weird or what?
Next we have the arrow on the right. Here it gets even weirder. This is picking out an object that blasts upward from the 'wrist' just as the rotating 'hand' has reached the perpendicular. What's more, it is doing this against the flow : in opposition to the motion of the structure as a whole. When first I saw this I was tempted to think that it might be a sampling/research rocket aimed at the train by scientists (or even a ground to air missile). But, given that this sequence was filmed in Mongolia – and no mention is made of a rocket by the IMO members who were there on the ground (scanning the sky with military grade image intensifying technology) – I discounted this theory. So the rapidly ascending object relates to this enigmatic plasma entity – not some outside force or agency.
Now the question – at this point - has to be: was either, or perhaps both, of the objects indicated: both of which qualify as UFOs in the absolute sense of the term, responsible for what we are witnessing here?
This may well be the case. UFOs have, after all, been associated with electromagnetic disturbances. They've shut down the electrical systems in cars for instance – and, incredibly, the targetting avionics of fighter aircraft as the pilot prepared to open fire on them. (There are witnesses to such things: people that have direct experience of these events. Check out Robert Salas' testimony covering the 1967 Malmstrom Airbase incident.) For myself, I would argue that UFOs exploit a polarized plasma field to enable them work their magic: such as appearing from nowhere and disappearing (I would say 'de-materializing') along with performing high-speed manoeuvres that defy the inertial laws of physics and jumping across vast, interstellar (maybe even inter-galactic) distances instantaneously.
If you would like to understand how they do this, how alien (space-ripping) technology works: please download and read this pdf:
(NB. Please note: this document also doubles-up as a Grand Unified Theory of Space and Time.)
To return to our plasma entity. The structure does – after a little while – begin to disperse: and I've no doubt that the wind would have had something to do with this. But were the effects of the wind solely responsible for the way in which this structure evolved over time: and the other weird phenomena associated with it? I don't think so. Nor, I suspect, do you.
There is also another reason why I believe that this, and related events aren't, necessarily, the result of rarely seen natural developments. If such occurrences were purely due to mundane, easily explicable happenstance – why, then, are steps being taken to hide them?
I'm now going to show you an instance of digital vandalism; the sole purpose of which is to hide the truth.
Remember this? (I'll forgive you if you don't.) This is, of course, another version of the picture that I used to introduce the subject matter of this article: malformed meteors doing things they really shouldn't. It's quite dark isn't it? If you were to come across this old lithographic print on, say, Wikipedia (from where I downloaded it) – would you pay it much attention? Would you take the time to really scrutinize it to try and work out what was going on? Maybe you would sit – shaking your head – wondering why an artist would even bother to produce such a murky image: an illustration that illustrates almost nothing.
But, enough of the rhetorical questions. You know what's going on here don't you. You know why this artists' impression of the 1868 Leonid meteor storm is so devoid of detail. But, before we start handing down judgement on this criminal misrepresentation, let's meet the artist responsible for the original: an artist whose stock-in-trade was his meticulous, even obsessive, attention to detail.
Trouvolet: a French national, emigrated to America in 1852 where he worked as an artist and illustrator. In 1872 he joined the staff of the Harvard College Observatory where he produced astronomical drawings that are now held in several collections across the US.
He is credited with the discovery of 'veiled' sun spots and was honoured, for his contributions in the astronomical field, by having a crater on the moon named after him. So, when it comes to the importance/ranking of luminaries in the history of astronomy, this guy is up there with the likes of Tycho Brahe.
None of this, however, mattered to the mean-minded, truth denying little shit that decided Trouvolet's diligent observations had revealed too much and needed – therefore - to be consigned to darkness..
To him I would say: :"The truth will not be denied. So go f<ck yourself".
Now an important note. Trouvolet's drawing: The November Meteors, was based on observations made of the Leonid Meteor Storm that lit up the sky on the night of November 13-14 1868. However, if you look up the annual arrival of the Leonids on google you will probably be told that the best time to see them: this year, will be on the night of 17-18 November. I would advise that you be ready on both nights. Remember, you aren't just looking out for meteors doing what meteors do. You are also looking out for: and hopefully recording, meteors doing stuff that they shouldn't.
My Friends, the next time plasmatic fire flames across the skies, it mightn't be over a remote region of Mongolia, it might be directly over your head. So be ready.
Acknowledgments and links:
Many thanks to the International Meteor Organization
The Leonid meteors' parent comet is thought to be Tempel Tuttle.
Read more here:
If you want to see a meteor exploding followed by wind dispersal of the results: go here:
The author of this work claims 'fair use': with regard to all materials used, in the interests of open and informed debate.
I'm going to show you clear, irrefutable evidence that there is an ongoing conspiracy to cover-up the facts concerning UFOs and the extraterrestrial presence in our Solar System and skies.
I'm also going to show you that there are those that are prepared to move continents (metaphorically speaking) in order to falsify maps: specifically with regard to the time zone information conveyed by those maps, so as to hide the truth about past and current events.
Now let's take a look at the evidence.
Maps & Hard Facts.
You will, no doubt, be familiar with different kinds of maps. You will also be aware that most maps feature both horizontal lines: called lines of latitude – and vertical lines: called lines of longitude. It is with the latter: the lines of longitude (also known as meridians), that we will be concerning ourselves with here. Lines of longitude fulfill a very important function: they vertically divide maps of the world into twenty-four time zones that correspond to the twenty-four hour sidereal day. Back in the days before global positioning technology navigators: aboard ships at sea, used two clocks (one set to local time and the other to Greenwich Mean Time) to compute their longitudinal position – from east to west – relative to the Prime Meridian (which is set at zero degrees) that intersects the Royal Observatory at Greenwich ( in the UK).
The important thing to remember here is that time zones do not change. There might well be a localized or regional scheme at work in the place where you live, but these schemes: such as British Summer Time for instance, are introduced for economic/commercial reasons - or so that children are not packed off to school whilst it's still dark ETC. These schemes do not, in any way, affect global time zones that are demarcated by lines of longitude: these remain fixed.
Now we are going to be comparing maps as we go along – so we are going to need geographical points of reference: which are common to all the maps we will be looking at, in order to make accurate comparisons.
Furthermore, what you need to understand about these reference points is that we are only interested in their longitudinal position: which fixes the time zones in which they are located. Their latitudinal relationship can be safely ignored.
The geographical reference points that I have chosen for this exercise are:
We are now ready to start counting time zones.
(Please don't worry if you are a little perplexed right now. Everything will, I can assure you, become perfectly plain by the time you have reached the end of this article.)
Please count from where the Isthmus of Panama joins to South America, to the West coast of North Africa.
I've included this next, static, map so that there can be no misunderstanding on the time zone issue. The maps above and below both convey the same hard facts.
These days there isn't, really, any excuse why any maps should convey/contain inaccurate information: given the widely available technological tools with which we can all put maps together. I mean, anyone can download and install google Earth, can they not? So we all have access to a map making tool that the navigators and cartographers of old would have given their eye-teeth for.
But what if the intended purpose behind a map's design wasn't to inform: but to dis-inform?
Maps & Deliberate Deception.
Please repeat the time zone counting exercise.
Original image courtesy of Sky and Telescope Magazine (via EarthSky.org)
I put this animated gif image together using a jpeg file that is widely featured on several websites. It originally appeared in an article by Donald Olson: who describes himself as a 'forensic astronomer' at Texas State University (which doesn't actually have an astronomy department – according to the University's on-line curriculum), and Steve Hutcheon: an Australian astronomer, in the February 2013 issue of Sky and Telescope Magazine.
Please be aware, I am not claiming that either Olson or Hutcheon were responsible for the massive discrepancy that distorts the geographical and time zone information conveyed by this image – they mightn't have even been aware of it. But of one thing we can be sure – that discrepancy is so massive: continental Africa, in it's entirety, has been moved eastwards FFS, it cannot be anything other than deliberate.
So what, exactly, is this map supposed to convey? The red dots you see in the image above represent the locations from which observers witnessed The Great Canadian Meteor Procession of 9 February 1913. Olson and Hutcheon had undertaken an investigation into this extraordinary event and published their findings in Sky and Telescope Magazine which is aimed at the amateur astronomer. So – as far as I am aware – this image hasn't appeared in any academic publications/papers where it would have been subjected to the rigours of the peer-review process.
Now what was it – about the 1913 event: and the timescale over which it played out – that required this massively blatant application of disinformation to deliberately obscure it's true nature?
My friends, what was seen in the skies over Canada – and around the world – in 1913 weren't meteors: they were UFOs. This is what they don't want you to know.
And I can prove it.
Please read this article:
Acknowledgments and Reciprocal Links:
Time Zone Maps:
TZM 1 (animated gif)
The author of this work claims 'fair use': with regard to all materials used, in the interests of open and informed debate.
There is probably more disinformation out there concerning UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation than on any other issue. Why is this?
Aliens are visiting Planet Earth for a reason. If you want to understand why they are here please read:
Please watch and share this video. Please help me to put an end to war and rid our world of all weapons of mass destruction.
We are not enemies:
We can do this. We must do this.
Please join the global campaign to spread peace across our world and throughout the cosmos.
peace, love & respect
Which would you prefer: disclosure, about the extraterrestrial presence on Planet Earth, by our own governments; or disclosure from extraterrestrials themselves?
The thing is, whilst our governments are: at the moment, steadfastly refusing to disclose any evidence they have regarding extraterrestrials; the extraterrestrials themselves have already presented us with awe inspiring proof of their presence in our Solar System and skies.
And this evidence was shown to us – in a most spectacular fashion – on the night of the 9 February, 1913.
Now the sketch above (from PDF page 35): drawn by a witness to the Great Canadian Meteor Procession of 1913, mightn't look all that spectacular – it is, after all, only composed of pencil lines drawn on paper (I've inverted the colour scheme to make the image stand out) – but if you compare it to the image below: of an event that occurred a century later in February 2013, you will get a much better understanding of what was seen in the skies over Canada, and across the world, on that eventful night.
(I've flipped this image: of the Chelyabinsk event, horizontally to make the comparison easier.)
(NB The pencil drawing above: along with most of the evidential material that I will be presenting here, is sourced from a paper: 'An Extraordinary Meteoric Display', published by Canadian astronomer Clarence A. Chant in The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada Vol. VII. May-June, 1913. No3.)
'So what has all this stuff about meteors got to do with ET?' - is the question that you are probably asking right now.
Please read the following extract from Clarence A. Chant's paper very carefully.
" A huge meteor appeared travelling from the south-east, which, as it approached, was seen to be in two parts and looked like two bars of flaming material, one following the other. They were throwing out a constant stream of sparks and after they had passed they shot out balls of fire straight ahead that traveled more rapidly than the main bodies. They seemed to pass over slowly and were in sight about five minutes. Immediately after their disappearance in the south-east a ball of clear fire, that looked like a big star, passed across the sky in their wake. This ball did not have a tail or show sparks of any kind..."
We now need to break this extract down and examine what it is implying it more closely.
"...looked like two bars of flaming material, one following the other." Think about this. A 'bar shape' would imply rectangularity – whether the bar in question was cylindrical or rectangular in cross-section - when seen from the side we: and the witness here, would be seeing a rectangle. Now – as we all know – meteors are supposed to be haphazardly formed, irregularly shaped rocks that plunge into the Earth's atmosphere. So what mechanism could account for this rectangular (or, perhaps, classic cigar-shaped) geometry?
Then there's this: " ...they shot out balls of fire straight ahead that traveled more rapidly than the main bodies...". Meteors enter our atmosphere travelling at tremendous speed (36,000 mph or faster) and then decelerate as friction caused by their passage through the air rapidly bleeds away their kinetic energy. So what we are being told here should be impossible. When meteors break up in the atmosphere some of the debris formed could decelerate faster than other pieces – but to accelerate away from the bodies that generated them would mean that there must be some form of energy input/output: completely seperate from the rapidly decaying kinetic energy already possessed by those bodies – at play here.
And it doesn't end there. Consider this: "They seemed to pass over slowly and were in sight about five minutes." Now compare what this witness is saying with this known fact regarding the speed at which meteors travel across the sky: the slowest ever speed – recorded with radar technology – for a meteor's passage was ten miles per second. Now an object traveling at that speed for five minutes would cover a distance of 3,000 miles. This means that an observer on the ground would need to be able to see 1,500 miles in either direction in order to witness the entire event. And this is – of course – impossible due the curvature of the Earth. Therefore these objects couldn't have been travelling at anything like typical meteoric velocities.
Finally, we have the third object reported by this witness. "...a ball of clear fire, that looked like a big star, passed across the sky... This ball did not have a tail or show sparks of any kind..." Here, yet again, we are looking at an object of dubious provenance: given it's un-meteor-like appearance. Consider, the friction generated by a meteor's passage through the atmosphere causes it's surface to both heat up to high temperatures, and also to abrade, so that a glowing tail: composed of hot meteoric material, forms in it's wake. This object didn't have a tail of any description. Why?
So add all of the above together and what do you get? I'll tell you one thing that you most definitely don't get - that is a stream of meteors. These objects can only, really be best described in only one way: as Unidentified Flying Objects. And, as you will see, what occurred on the night of 9 February, 1913 was a UFO event of staggering proportions – the magnitude of which hasn't ever been seen before or witnessed since. Which is not to say that it couldn't ever happen again. (Given the ongoing proliferation of sightings of slow moving, silent fireballs in our skies - I'm pretty sure that it will.)
A little background information would be useful at this point. Clarence Augustus Chant: who is generally regarded to be the 'father of Canadian astronomy', did not – unfortunately – witness the great procession himself. But after receiving phone calls, and reading reports of the phenomenon in the press, he realized that something highly unusual had occurred that needed to be investigated. So he wrote to newspapers across Canada asking them to appeal: on his behalf, for eye-witness accounts. Most of what you will be reading here consists of the written accounts from those that responded.
( NB. A PDF version of Chant's paper is available for download on NASA's Astrophysics Data System website.
Here's the link: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913JRASC...7..145C
I would urge you to download this document now – being able to refer to it as you read this article will enable you to appreciate the true nature of this unparalleled event: an event that – should it be repeated – will have an almost unimaginable impact on our future and the way in which we perceive our true place within the cosmos.
Also, please note: for reference purposes, all page numbers given in this article are PDF page numbers; you will need to have Adobe's page thumbnails pane open to locate the extracts used here.)
Now let's continue our exploration of this unprecedented event. This next extract is taken from Chant's overview of the material he'd received from witnesses. It can be found on PDF page 5.
Before we start breaking this extract down, however, we need to understand a little about the man who wrote it. Chant, in his earlier carreer, lectured in physics at the University of Toronto. Here he would have become accustomed to submitting his work to the the rigours of the academic peer review process..So we can, with a degree of certainty, safely surmise that he was a soberly scholastic character: not easily given over to sensationalism or graphic overstatement. Yet, despite this scholastic sobriety, what he has written/reported above is truly sensational.
Think about it. Chant is, here, talking about a disparate collection of haphazardly formed rocks from space: each of a unique size, weight and – most importantly – mass (mass is a component of momentum: IE mass x velocity = momentum). Now whilst these lumps of debris might have entered the Earth's atmosphere travelling at the same, initial velocity, once they encountered atmospheric drag/resistance: which would have affected them all to a different degree, this would have changed dramatically. Those with less mass would have begun to lose forward momentum much more rapidly than their more massive counterparts, as their kinetic energy was absorbed by the molecular gases that constitute the air we breath. And this would have been a runaway process. The more kentic energy given up in this way, the lower these objects would have descended into the increasingly denser atmosphere – causing exponential energy loss. This means that the scenario described by Chant above is a physical impossibility. Meteors could not have maintained any kind of formation in the way described by Chant above. In the real world meteors with less mass would have quickly fallen out of the formation and headed Earthwards.
Yet multiple witnesses described these objects maintaining formation over a distance of seven thousand miles. Now I would argue that I have already proven that we are not looking at inanimate lumps of rock here. So, we have to ask, how was this formation maintained? Are we looking at coordination – even communication – between these objects?
Before we attempt to answer that question, let's take a look at - and examine - a few more witness statements.
"About 9 o'clock or a little after as I was on way home from church I saw a large meteor fall to earth, leaving a trail of fire as long as Halley's Comet behind it. Then, turning towards the north, I saw a large black cloud, out of which shooting stars were coming, as it seemed, about 50, each having a line of fire in its path, and disappearing in a large black cloud in the south. After this there began a low rumbling sound like thunder."
From PDF page 25.
This is the only account – to be found in Chant's paper – that describes a meteor falling to Earth. We need to bear in mind here that this witness doesn't report any kind of detonation associated with the event: which would have indicated an impact, only a " low rumbling sound like thunder" afterwards. (I'll be dealing with the sounds associated with the passage of the 'meteor stream' later.)
The main point of interest here is the fact that this witness reports seeing meteors emerging from one cloud and then disappearing into another. This tells us that the stream flew through the atmosphere – not out in space above it.
Moreover, establishing the exact altitude at which these objects flew – from reports which differed considerably - proved to be something of a problem for Chant. To resolve this problem he first of all tries to establish a line on the map, over which the meteor stream passed directly: which he termed 'the meteor trace'. Next he tries to establish the distance between 'the meteor trace' and the various points on the map from which observations were made. Finally he uses the reported angle: given in degrees above the horizon, the 'meteor trace' used as a baseline, and the points from which observations were made to perform a triangulation calculation to arrive at the correct altitude.
In fact, Chant: with this next extract, offers up an intimation that he – himself – suspected that the height of the stream above the ground varied over much of its course.
From PDF page 8.
"...I saw the first meteor at 9.05 it was a little west of north-west from here and travelling nearly towards me. I took it for an aeroplane with both headlights lit, and as it came nearer the sparks falling behind it made it appear more like one...It was very low...just above the hills."
From PDF page 28.
Then there's this:
From PDF page 42.
"...which was still going up...". There you have it. Proof that these objects didn't just fly through the atmosphere – they actually maneuvered within it.
So let us now take a look at Chant's 'meteor trace'. Here's the map - complete with the meteor trace - published by Chant himself:
From PDF page 20
As you can clearly see, the trace (arrowed) shown here describes a straight line with no curves, kinks or angles. Now, in my estimation, a stream of meteors flying a straight course through the sky: at the low speeds described by many witnesses (*see Table One) should, in fact, create a westward curving trace on the ground beneath: because Planet Earth rotates from West to East. And, further to this, it actually rotates at different speeds at different latitudes.
Check out this excellent info-graphic.
(Infographic by Seth Kadish. You can check out more of Seth's visually informative work here:
So how fast were these meteors moving? Let's take a look at what some of the witnesses had to say.
Here's another map (to which I've added a few features). I will be referring back to this map as we proceed.
This image/map illustrates a modern version (which includes information from more recent research) of Chant's 'meteor trace': his calculated/imagined straight line on the map (the line shown here follows the curvature of the planet). The problem with this straight line is purely, and simply the fact that it is straight.
Think about this. For this trace to describe a straight line it has to intersect each successive line of latitude at intersection points that are all on the move: all travelling from West to East at different speeds. So how was this achieved? As I see it, there are two distinct possibilities.
Either way – what we would be looking at here are a stream of objects that didn't just follow a flight path: but rather the coordinated trajectory of a stream of objects following a flight plan.
Now all of this does, of course, depend on the fact that the stream moved slowly across the heavens in the manner described by most witnesses. Most, that is, but by no means all. Because Chant's paper does include a few statements that don't agree with this'slow moving' scenario.
In an attempt to try and resolve this issue I began looking at the times: given by witnesses, at which the meteor stream passed specific locations (IE those circled on the map above). But, as you are about to find out, this exercise only served to raise more questions and deepen the mystery even further.
Please check out Table Two. It makes for very interesting – if baffling – reading. With this table I've converted the relevant times supplied by witnesses to Greenwich Mean Time so that direct comparisons can be made.
Click image to see in (enlarged) PDF format.
What then, are we to make of the timing anomalies that have been revealed by the simple process of converting all times given to their Greenwich Mean Time equivalents? Believe me, there is a simple explanation for this.
But first we need to explore the sighting witnessed by Mr A. Y. Porter: from the bridge of the SS Bellucia whilst at sea in the Atlantic, a little further. The following extract is in Mr Porter's own words: its taken from a letter he wrote to W. F. Denning (Denning was regarded at the time - by Chant and his contemporaries – to be the foremost expert on all things meteoric); the letter was dated April 10, 1915.
"....I was on the bridge from 8 to 12 pm. At 10.30 pm I saw the sky lighted up with meteoric fire, starting at north and and going by way of east to south-east. Apparently the height was about 25o above the horizon, but not more than 10-12 miles east of the position of the steamer at that time, continuing until 11.05 pm. It must have been travelling through the earth's atmosphere at the rate of more than 500 miles an hour and fragments were falling off as it passed along. It looked like red and white liquid fire... "
(Before continuing you now need to refer – directly - to Chant's paper. Please read at least some of the witness statements whilst paying careful attention to how they describe the time it took for the meteor stream to cross the sky.)
Once you have a good idea about the average length of time taken for the meteor stream to pass overhead according to the witness satements in Chant's paper: some three to six minutes (approximately), you will appreciate the import of the highlighted text in Mr Porter's statement above. Mr Porter is clearly telling us that his stream of 'red and white liquid fire' (at no point does he use the word 'meteor' – did he even see any individual meteors?) was in view for a full 35 minutes.
This calls into question whether or not Porter even witnessed the same event as that described by Chant. Further to this, if you examine the timing of the event at both Bermuda and Mortlach (and all points in between) in the table above (Table Two) you will begin to have serious doubts as to whether any two statements: from any two witnesses, are actually refering to a single, protracted event. Get the picture? Chant got it wrong. We are not looking at a single 'meteor stream' here. We are looking at multiple streams – of multiple incandescent objects – all airborn: all over the world. We are looking at a coordinated series of aerial events that was staged entirely for our benefit.
For some this was a magical experience:
"...I suddenly found that the whole heavens, from the zenith to the horizon, was full of meteors...They travelled no faster than a crow flies. There was absolute silence..."
From PDF page 39.
So much for the visuals, let's now examine the audio. As you will understand from the last extract, some witnesses: pointedly, remarked on the total lack of any sound that they could ascribe to the meteor stream's passage. Most, however, reported a low rumbling: that they described in various ways, that only reached their ears after the stream had passed beyond the horizon. All of this is highly unusual – given the way that sound waves propagate through the atmosphere. Why - even the wind: which is just moving air, if it is strong enough, makes a noise. So what kind of sound does a fast moving object: that displaces a large volume of air as it goes, create? Well, if that object is travelling faster then the speed of sound then the noise created is horrendous.
The picture below illustrates how the hard-hitting, classic double THUD THUD of a sonic boom is generated.
This shows the shock waves generated by a bullet. It works in exactly the same way for a super-sonic aircraft or meteor/incoming asteroid. You hear the individual booms as the waves pass over you (and scare you half to death). If the object is travelling fast enough the booms will occur too close together to be made out individually: you will hear just one, heart-stoppingly loud boom.
Why then, didn't Chant's contributors include any reasonably accurate description of this phenomenon in their accounts? All real meteors are, by their very nature, supersonic. The only time they cease to be so is when they either burn up or hit the ground. Yet nowhere can anything like this be read in this paper. Were the laws of physics/acoustics different back in 1913? Or were these objects travelling slower than the speed of sound (which would mean – yet again – that they couldn't have been meteors)?
The amount/volume of air displacement does, of course, depend upon the size of the object/objects doing the displacing. Chant discusses this aspect: specifically, the size of the meteors witnessed over Canada, on page 18 of the PDF. On the issue of size he concludes with this:
"...I am inclined to think the largest bodies to have been at least 100 feet in diameter."
From PDF page 19.
Now when it comes to high-speed meteoric objects, a diameter of 100 feet isn't small: it's scary. Such an object travelling at , say, 40,000 miles per hour while close to the ground ( or low over the hills – as described by one of Chant's contributors) wouldn't just create a noise loud enough to implode your eardrums: it would also generate a shock wave powerful enough to flatten buildings. Such objects are killers. In some cases; planet killers.
Luckily for us, however, the 'meteors' that appeared over Canada in 1913 didn't: as I have consistently shown here, behave in a typically 'meteor-like' fashion. They didn't do the things that real meteors typically do. They didn't – for instance – do this:
The devastation that you see here: which extended over 800 square miles, was caused by a space-rock exploding with, it is thought, the force of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, over a Siberian pine forest in 1908. (NB. Planetary scientists now believe that the object in question here was no bigger then 30 meters in diameter: IE a little under Chant's estimation of 100 feet for the larger bodies in the meteor stream.) This air burst detonation was triggered by the rapid (very rapid) deceleration induced by atmospheric drag: nothing more. Just simple physics – a simple set of circumstances well understood by science. So the big question here has to be: why didn't any of the objects in the meteor stream suffer the same fate? They were all exposed to exactly the same set of circumstances. Why the different outcome?
Real meteors do not, either, always explode in the atmosphere. Some survive the scorching friction of their descent to make it all the way through to impact. But then, if this had happened back 1913, we'd know about it. We'd have all learned: during history lessons at school, of how, perhaps, Toronto had been reduced to smouldering ruins by a fireball from space. Or how the steamships SS Bellucia and SS Newlands had been overwhelmed by a tidal wave that went on to inundate and destroy South American coastal cities.
Real meteors can do this. Real meteors can, in fact, do much worse. There are lumps of rock out there: looping through space in unstable near-earth orbits, that are a lot bigger than the rock that blew up over Tunguska; or anything seen over Canada in 1913. But then the latter weren't real meteors were they. They were something entirely different. Technology from other worlds perhaps. Maybe we should be attempting to contact those responsible for the Great Event. Who knows? Perhaps they would be willing to help us out – should a real meteor: with planet killer characteristics, ever come our way.
So now my friends it's time to take the plunge, and ask ourselves: what was the purpose of this huge, celestial firework display? What were these signs in the sky trying to tell us?
I know this. It's really quite simple. All they are saying is this: 'We are here'. They've said it once, and they'll say it again. The second time around, however, things will pan out a little differently. Because the next time it happens thousands will record the event with their cell phones and digital cameras. The evidence: that extraterrestrials are disclosing their presence on Planet Earth, will then become undeniable.
My friends, the main event will be foreshadowed by the appearance other aerial phenomena (read Chant's paper) so you will get a warning – be ready.
So keep watching the skies, and keep that camera handy, just in case.
Many thanks for reading.
Peace, Love & Respect
PS – If you want to understand why they are here, please read this article:
The author of this work claims fair use: with regard to all materials used, in the interests of open and informed debate.
The author of this work is not claiming that any of the individuals, or organizations, named in this work in any way support the views expressed in this article.
Acknowledgments and links:
I would like to thank Seth Kadish of Vizual Statistix for kindly allowing me to use one of his visually innovative – and highly informative - infographics.
You can view the infographic used in this article here:
Many thanks, also, to NASA's Astrophysics Data System website. For making most of the material I've used here available.
NASA's database of stored documents can be accessed using the following link:
Last, but not least, I would love to be able to thank Clarence A. Chant but, as he is no longer with us, I'll just have to provide a link to the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada – of which he was a founder member - instead:
Slow moving, silent fireballs are appearing all over the world with increasing frequency.
Please watch this video and then afterwards use YouTube's search field to view other fireball/meteor related material.
(This is a scaled down image. To view the original on NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory website please use this link:
I would, respectfully, suggest that you view the original image now - then you will fully appreciate the implications of what you are looking at here.)
This second image picks out the object of interest.
We are going to take a closer look at this object.
Here it is isolated and enlarged:
Things are beginning to look a little interesting – don't you think? Let's lighten, adjust the contrast, and sharpen the image up a bit.
Wow! What's this? A graven image?
It looks a bit like the gargoyles that can seen adorning cathedrals and churches.
Let's colorize the image to see if we can then pick out more detail.
Now we can clearly see that we are looking at a face here. It's a bit smashed up – and more than a little bit scary looking – but it's definitely a carved stone image of a face. On Mars!
It features an eyeball: complete with pupil, within a distinctly hexagonal* eye socket. And a mouth with prominent upper and lower teeth (notice how the top row aligns with the bottom?).
So, we have to ask: are there any natural processes that could have carved out this forbidding stone effigy? Wind or water erosion perhaps? Maybe we're just seeing something that isn't there: like seeing shapes in the clouds. I don't think so my friends. Here we have the evidence – quite literally – staring us straight in the face.
We can really only conclude that Mars was once populated by a race that had much in common with ourselves. A race that produced artifacts and graven images. And, most important of all, a race that existed here in our Solar System: not billions of light years away across the Cosmos.
No more denials. They are already here. They were here before us and – if we let the warmongers have their way – they'll still be here long after we've gone.
So let's try and make sure we hang around long enough to get to know them.
Please use the Universal Peace tab at the top of this page.
*Hexagons are well represented elsewhere in the Solar System:
A huge, hexagonal storm system can be found at Saturn's north pole.
I put this article together with the help of the Mars Analysis Project Team whose work can be viewed here:
Many thanks to NASA for providing online access to the images used.
This meeting took place in Idlib: Syria, in April last year.
James Foley was kidnapped in Idlib in November 2012. John McCain met with Ibrahim al-Badri when his organization was already holding Foley hostage. McCain obviously didn't secure Foley's release - but he did manage to not get kidnapped by Islamic State. Which begs the question: what the f>ck - exactly - is going on here?
If you would like to download and share the image above please do so (right click and select 'save image as').
If you would like to oppose all wars and weapons of mass destruction please click the Universal Peace tab at the top of this page.
The image above was taken by the Microscopic Imaging Camera carried by NASA's Opportunity Rover: which is currently trundling across the Martian surface. The picture is a close-up of that surface. Can you see anything unusual in this picture?
Perhaps if I show you another.
(I added the red arrow)
Now do you see it? What is it – do you think - that we are looking at here? The thing is – regardless of what this object might be – it really shouldn't there at all. This object has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Opportunity Rover that took this image. It isn't a component that has fallen off the Rover. Nor is it a mark left by the Rover's rock abrasion tool (RAT).
Yet there it is. Clearly, a manufactured object/artifact on the surface of Mars.
Let's take a closer look at this object.
(Besides enlarging the image I've also adjusted the contrast to bring out the object more clearly.)
So here it is in all its glory – an alien artifact found on the surface of The Red Planet.
Here I've given names to the artifact's features.
(NB. These are quite arbitrary. I haven't really got a clue about this object's intended function.)
What I would draw your attention to is the 'flow-curve' feature located at the point where the rectangular extension and cirular housing join together to form a 'key hole' shape'. This – I would argue – is evidence of aesthetically intelligent design. Whoever made this artifact was concerned about both form and function.
So what are we to make of it then? This object has probably been embedded in the Martian surface for a great many years: centuries, or even millennia perhaps. It does show signs of corrosion. But the main question has to be: is whoever made it still around?
There are other questions of course. One being: both Rovers – Opportunity and Spirit - are equiped with miniature mass spectrometers; does NASA know what this object is made of?
Also – speaking of NASA – does the release of this image mean that 'disclosure' is now a 'done deal'?
One – monumental - inference that can safely be drawn here is that we now know: beyond any shadow of a doubt, that we are not alone in the Universe. Extraterrestrial races are out there. And they aren't just millions of light years away on the other side of the galaxy. They are right here in our Solar System. Right here in our backyard.
And - what's more – they are leaving evidence behind: evidence left for us to find, to let us know that they are, indeed, out there.
The original images can be viewed on NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory website by following this link:
Our alien visitors are trying to tell us something about our nuclear weapons.
Each and every one of us needs to hear and understand what they have to say.
Understanding the alien message - and being prepared to do something about it - could save your life: and the lives of your children and grandchildren.
Doing nothing isn't really an option. If you do nothing then those whom amass vast profits from promulgating and prosecuting wars will dictate what happens in our future.
And none of us will be given a say in whether we are to live or die.
Please act now. Please sign and support the Universal Peace Petition.
Here's the link:
If you choose to sign this petition and would like to help promote Peace on Planet Earth & throughout the Cosmos - please download and help distribute this one page promotional PDF document:
War is coming to Our World.
NATO is massing its forces on Russia's borders in both Poland & Lithuania.
In response, Russia is marshalling its own forces in preparation for an attack.
All it would take now is one mistake - or one deliberate act of aggression carried out by a small group of agent provocateurs - and the entire World will be plunged into the abyss.
The questions we must ask here are: whose agenda are our governments following by adopting this insane policy towards one of the most powerful nations on Earth?
How could it be in our interests to usher in a nuclear holocaust that could destroy the Planet?
When were we ever consulted about whether or not we are prepared to risk seeing our entire families incinerated before our very eyes?
No my friends, we are not being asked. And - what's more - we are not going to be asked: because, as far as the warmongers are concerned, we do not have a say in this. All that is required from us is that we die - when they determine it is time for us to die.
Well, can you live with this?
Or would you rather stand up - now - and have your say?
If you are prepared to take a stand and send a clear message to your,government - and the warmongers - that you oppose their plans for us and Our World: then please sign, and support, The Universal Peace Petition. The aims of this petition are to establish Peace on Planet Earth & throughout the Cosmos, and promote mutually beneficial contact between Humanity and Extraterrestrial Civilizations.
As you can see - the petition covers every eventuality.
Those of you prepared to take a stand please use this link:
If you are prepared to go even further: and actively promote Universal Peace, please download and help distribute this PDF:
Download: Humanity's Future?
My friends, The Universal Peace Petition may well represent the most effective way available to oppose the insanity of what now confronts us all.
Please do not waste this opportunity to do the right thing, for Your World.
Many thanks for reading.
Peace, Love & Respect
PS. You can read more: related material, by scrolling down to my last article: the Alien Agenda for Planet Earth