I believe, with an unshakable conviction, in the reality of visitation. My belief is unwavering and incontestable because it is, primarily, based upon personal experience. I have: on two occasions, been witness to phenomena that can only be explained by acknowledging the presence of an alien intelligence. So I know, for sure, that we are not alone.
Such belief should not, however, be a cause for anyone to suspend their critical faculties and blindly accept all the evidence that is placed before them. Question everything. Accept nothing at face value. And strive to remain sceptical as you seek the truth.
Being a believer whilst – at the same time – maintaining a hypercritical outlook on all things UFO can, of course, cause problems for anyone that adopts this hard-line viewpoint. Those that reject the populist view: that refuse to accept the sanctity of someone else's sacred cows, are never going to be popular themselves. In extreme cases they might become isolated or even vilified and shunned by the wider community. But then truth can be a hard task master. Such is life.
So I do believe; but I do not believe everything. And nor should you.
For instance, I have a problem believing that an alien craft: along with its crew, belonging to a civilization that is – perhaps - millions of years more technologically advanced than we are, can cross the vast expanses of interstellar space only to arrive here and crash in the desert. How would this happen? What strange sequence of events could lead to this unlikely outcome? After all, we could – with our current level of technology – equip cars with scanning laser systems that would prevent them from colliding with the car in front. Yet these guys – travelling in a craft capable of circumventing Einstein's speed-of-light cosmological constant - couldn't avoid hitting an object the size of a planet? Further to this we know that the occupants of UFOs are monitoring our military hardware. This includes our jet aircraft that are equipped with ejector seats, flown by pilots kitted out with parachutes. Now, are we to believe that ETs haven't the knowledge or foresight to equip their own craft with equivalent escape systems? Come on! And when you think about it, doesn't categorizing such an extraordinary incident as a 'crash', seem a bit overly simplistic? Surely there is more to this phenomenon than that. Moreover, shouldn't we – at the very least – cast our speculative nets a bit wider to draw in other possible explanations for these highly suspect scenarios?
No, I'm afraid that – if simply describing this type of incident as a crash, and leaving it there, is the best that we can do – then we cannot be taking a close enough look at the complex reality of visitation. We have to be missing something.
So let us now explore another possibility and look at these events again; but this time from a starting point that I am going to propose. This starting point is entirely logical. I am going to suggest, to you, that all of these events were/are being deliberately staged. For it is when we begin to examine the, 'By whom?' and, 'For what reason?' aspects of my proposed scenario that this line of inquiry starts to get interesting.
To start we need to ask: who has the necessary resources required to falsify a crash event? There are really only two possible candidates that fit the bill here. And the intriguing thing about both of these is that – because this isn't a mutually exclusive, either or situation – both of them could be equally guilty. Our first candidate has to be, for obvious reasons, our own governments. And our second has to be – for reasons that will be made clear – none other than the Extraterrestrial himself.
Interested? Then please read on.
What we need – at this point – is to reference an actual incident: where deception might well have been involved, with which test the 'staged theory'. So why not go for broke here and throw the most celebrated crash incident of all time: Roswell, New Mexico, circa 1947, into the mix.
This incident was guaranteed to pass into UFO folklore from the outset, due to the fact that it was originally announced to the world by a United States Army Air Force press officer: Walter Haut, of the 509th Bomb Group. However, Haut's initial claim – that personnel from the 509th had recovered a 'flying disk' from a crash site near Roswell – would be retracted the very next day: July 9, 1947, by Roger M. Ramey, Commanding General of the Eighth Air Force. Official sources then mounted what appeared to be a damage limitation exercise; or, as some would have it, a cover-up. Press releases: issued by the military, now described the debris field found at the scene to be the result of a downed weather balloon breaking up as it hit the ground. These statements were backed-up by photographs showing fragments of aluminized material from just such a balloon (or something very similar), being shown to reporters by Major Jesse Marcel - an air force intelligence officer. Marcel had actually visited the crash site accompanied by Lt Col Sheridan Cavitt: head of counter intelligence at Roswell Army Air Field. Now why two relatively high ranking intelligence officers – with no technical personnel in attendance - should be part of the initial military response to the incident has never been made clear. Although this would make sense if the entire event was a staged disinformation operation concocted by American military intelligence.
So what then, are we looking at here? A crashed balloon or UFO? Or something else entirely?
The best evidence we have: that whatever had occurred at Roswell, wasn't the result of a UFO or weather balloon disintegrating after smashing into the ground, comes in the form of statements made by Mac Brazel. Brazel was the ranch operator who had originally discovered the debris field at the centre of the controversy. What follows is an extract from a report: featuring an interview with him, carried by the Roswell Daily Chronicle of 9 July 1947.
'Brazel said that he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these.'
Here are two more extracts: from the same report, in which our witness describes the crash scene.
(Brazel found): '...a large area of bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.'
(And what he didn't find): 'There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil.'
Now none of the materials mentioned above could possibly have belonged to a violently de-constructed spacecraft. And it is also highly unlikely: given Brazel's statement, that they were fragmented debris from a crashed weather balloon.
Furthermore, and perhaps more pertinently: why did Mac Brazel – himself – think that the material could have come from a crashed flying disk? For this is how he described his find to Sheriff George Wilcox on Monday 7 July: who had, in turn, passed the information to Major Marcel.
Mac Brazel's assessment of his discovery was, no doubt, influenced by a story that was circulating on the local grapevine in the Roswell area at the time. The story: which reads like a classic UFO sighting, was eventually reported by The Roswell Daily Record on July 8 (the day Haut dropped his bombshell).
'Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wilmot apparently were the only persons in Roswell who saw what they thought was a flying disk.
They were sitting on their porch...last Wednesday night (2 July: author) at about ten o'clock when a large glowing object zoomed out of the sky from the south-east, going in a north-westerly direction at a high rate of speed.'
The Wilmots owned a hardware store in the town and it would be reasonable to assume that Brazel knew them and so would have heard their story before it appeared in the local paper on the 8th.
There had also been other reports of people seeing 'flying discs' in the national newspapers. These included the seminally famous Kenneth Arnold sighting – which first gave us the term 'flying saucer' – which made the front-page of the Chicago Daily Tribune on 26 June 1947.
But is this all there was to suggest: to Brazel, that the debris he had found was the remnants of a shattered disk? Would he have reported his find in this manner: to an officer of the law, on the strength of a local rumour or reports in the press that he may or may not have read? I strongly suspect that there was something else that he found at the scene that suggested circularity. Maybe it was the overall distribution of the debris. Or perhaps there were hooped shaped components present that indicated a circular configuration. So what are we looking at here?
I'm going to hazard a guess. All of the different materials described by Brazel have one thing in common: they all weigh very little. So lets indulge in some backward engineering. Why lightweight materials? Wouldn't this indicate a pretty flimsy airframe? There is really only one conclusion that makes any sense here. We have to be looking at something that was designed and constructed to be lighter-than-air. We can – in fact - only be looking at a miniature, rigid airship: that would normally be filled with helium or hydrogen gas, configured to look like a flying saucer.
So now we need to examine how such a device would be used in practice. But - first of all – it would be prudent to establish the criteria used to determine where the fake flying saucers were to be deployed. Lets go with the obvious here: the most obvious being those areas where UFO activity had already been reported. Another consideration would have to population density in the target area. There has to be an audience (witnesses) present; but having too many people around that could stumble across the deployment process: IE see our flying saucer being off loaded by soldiers from the back of a truck, would not be desirable.
Next the method: the actual mechanics of deployment. The first problem to be overcome is getting the mock-up spacecraft to the actual site where it will be used to generate a 'UFO event'. I imagine the whole charade would have panned-out in the following fashion. The incident would start with a convoy of trucks leaving an army/air force base. The trucks would be carrying the pseudo spacecraft and enough soldiers to man a perimeter around the launch site and prevent members of the public intruding into the operational area. Upon reaching the carefully chosen location: a site hidden from direct view on the outskirts of a small, rural community, the saucer would be launched from the back of one of the trucks. This wouldn't be a complicated procedure. All that would be required was to remove the tarpaulin covering the truck's top secret cargo, and unfasten whatever was securing the lighter-than-air mock-up to the truck bed. Next a thin cable would be attached so that the flying saucer could be winched back down after it had been allowed to rise up into the air. Whilst airborne the saucer would, of course, be visible over quite a distance. This basic procedure could then be embellished with flashing lights, pyrotechnics and strange noises blasted out over a mobile sound system. Also, to top things off – and ensure that news of the event would spread far and wide – it would be a simple matter to plant stories in the press that described how the 'flying disk' zoomed across the sky and executed aerobatic manoeuvres that our aircraft couldn't possibly perform.
It wouldn't hurt, either, for the military to be seen in the area and connected in some way: in the minds of the local population, with the UFO event itself. In fact, a strange, oddly shaped object draped with a tarpaulin, spotted on the back of an army truck leaving the scene would now become: in the eye's of onlookers, a captured/recovered flying disk. Which is of course, exactly what they have been encouraged – by deception - to believe. Mission accomplished.
So much for the 'how' of our staged event. We now need to understand the 'why'.
Most people: who accept the reality of UFOs, believe that our government's reluctance to come clean on the issue stems from a desire to protect us from knowledge that we couldn't handle - that would unhinge our childlike, unsophisticated minds - and lead to mass panic that would bring civilization crashing down.
Well, actually, this isn't the case.
We are ruled through fear. Our governments carry a big stick and they are not averse to using it. If you doubt this, try stepping out of line and see what happens. However, what our governments don't want us to realize, is that it is they who are terrified by the presence of the Extraterrestrial. Why? Because ET carries a much bigger – and far more technologically advanced - stick than they do. UFOs and their occupants go wherever they want, whenever they want, and there is nothing that our governments can do about it.
Our governments cannot control ET. They hold no power over the Extraterrestrial. But there is one thing that they can control. This is the way in which we perceive the aliens and the way in which our governments appear to interact with them.
What we have here is a subtly layered response to a complex phenomenon. At the primary level our governments are telling us that UFOs do not exist. In support of this argument they use their connections in the media to discredit UFO researchers and label them as crackpots and conspiracy theorists. This suffices for most. But what about those of us that have actually witnessed something a little out of the ordinary? How are the-powers-that-be going to convince us that they still carry the biggest stick in town? You should already know the answer to this question. They are going to attempt to convince us that – yes – they can deal with the Alien. Have they not, already, acquired alien technology by capturing and back engineering a UFO? Then there are those alien corpses: laid out on an operating table and dissected. Maybe those little grey guys aren't so tough after all.
Put simply, what they are saying here goes: 'Regardless of what you may or may not believe, we are still in control. So do what you are instructed to do or else.'
This original fiction: typified by the 'Roswell incident', was further elaborated upon in the decades following 1947. We are now, for instance, expected to believe in the existence of underground bases where aliens and our own military plot against us as they pursue a shared agenda to enslave – or maybe hybridize - the human race. Really? I'm quaking in my boots. With laughter.
Consider this. We have very credible evidence: in the form of witness testimony, that aliens have interfered with our nuclear weapons technology. I would cite Robert Salas' statement, delivered at the Disclosure Project in 2001: which has been conclusively corroborated by other witnesses, in support of this view. Now if extraterrestrials were actively colluding with elements from within the military establishment, why would they then go on to compromise our nuclear weapons? The contradiction here is patently obvious. Either the bases exist and the interference never happened. Or the interference happened and the bases are a fiction. Now we need to decide which of these is true. OK. It wouldn't be difficult to understand why our military would want to form an alliance with a race that possesses technologies far in advance of our own. But can we say the same about ET? Why would he need to form an unnecessary alliance with a technologically inferior race? No, these bases only exist in the imaginations of the military intelligence strategists that invented this fiction, and the 'believe-anything' conspiracy theorists that they have managed, so successfully, to deceive.
The whole UFO thing did not, of course, begin with the Roswell incident in 1947. Indeed the need for some kind of disinformation campaign to be undertaken: to take control of the psychological impact of the UFO phenomenon on the general population, was probably first identified during the later stages of World War Two. Throughout the war thousands of airmen experienced encounters with the legendary foo fighters. Then - upon returning to civilian life - these men, in all probability, took great delight in recounting these experiences to their families and friends. Everyone loves a mystery after all.
Let us not forget, either, that this period also saw the dawn of the atomic age with the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos in New Mexico. Now the development of nuclear weapons was - without doubt - of enormous interest to our visitors and so would have led to a further increase in genuine UFO activity.
All of this meant that public awareness: that there was something-going-on-out-there about which they were not being informed, was rapidly growing. Something needed to be done. Allowing the populace to arrive at their own conclusions; which might then have developed into a general consensus, was never an option. Our governments needed to control what people were thinking in this situation just as they try and control what people think in all situations. If the idea: that our governments were powerless to influence the course of UFO related events, should take hold of the popular imagination; then the world's power structures – which depend upon controlling how we see our world – might well have begun to collapse.
There is a lot more at stake here than you might think.
It should be understood: by every adult on the face of the planet, that the ability to mould people's perceptions – the way in which they see and understand their world - is the very essence of power. We are all controlled by belief systems and prefabricated mindsets: filters that de-focus and distort reality, that are installed inside our heads when we are young and continuously up-dated and reinforced as we grow older.
Should the day come – when our skies are full of craft from other star systems; craft that we have been told do not exist – then all of the manufactured preconceptions, all of the distortions and lies will be seen for what they are. People will awaken from a dream that has clouded their judgement since childhood: since the dawn of civilization. They will suddenly understand the depth and breadth of the deception that has been perpetrated against them. They will no longer listen to politicians and priests. They will listen to what the Visitor has to say instead.
And so we now come to our second set of culprits guilty of perpetrating deception against us. With these folks, however, the motives behind their crimes are almost laudable when compared with those of our representatives in government.
As I have already stated, our governments have always sought to influence the way in which we see our world. To this end they have saturated our experience of life with a distorted vision of myth, magic, re-written history and religion. The Alien, on the other hand, seeks to understand our perception of our world. He wants to know whether or not we are capable of seeing the world as it truly is. He also wants to know whether or not we are capable of accepting a world - a reality – in which he is included. Basically, he wants to know whether or not he can be our friend.
This is why he has, on occasion, crashed something that looks a lot like a flying saucer into the desert. I've no doubt – whatsoever - that these crash scenarios were not staged using actual spacecraft. ET has, after all, witnessed what we do to each other with the technology that we already possess. He has seen our wars; he has witnessed the horror. So he is hardly likely to entrust to us technology that will allow us to become more proficient at doing what we do best: destroy ourselves along with our environment. No, the UFOs found at the Extraterrestrial's crash sites are no more capable of actual space flight than the shattered miniature airship found at Roswell.
Another feature of crash events - staged by the Alien - is the presence of some form of biological material or construct: some semblance of life, amidst the wreckage. I do not think, however, that we are looking at actual aliens here. It is more likely that these 'entities' were manufactured for the event: as part of the experiment. This does, of course, beg the question: who or what is being tested by this bizarre procedure? Logic tells us that we are the subject of this experiment. So we are being tested: along with our humanity. Our reactions to the presence of alien life are being closely monitored in this situation. We call ourselves human, but are we truly humane: do we respect the sanctity of life in all its myriad forms?
This is what the Alien wants to know.
Staging UFO crash events: and then monitoring our reactions, is one way in which the Extraterrestrial has tried to ascertain if we are ready to take things to the next level. These folks are seeking to psychoanalyse the collective mind of the human race before embarking on a course of action that will have an unparalleled impact on the future of mankind. That course of action being – the long anticipated – first contact.
Well, are you ready for what comes next?
Nobody knows how they would respond to the presence of the unknown until they actually come face to face with it. My chance to find out, how I would react, came some time ago now and to this day – some twenty or so years later – I still regret the decision I made on that bone cold night in November.
I'll set the scene. I was walking home from a party in the Sale area of Greater Manchester (UK). It was the early hours of the morning on the sixth of November with the smell of bonfires and fireworks, from the evening before, still hanging in the air. My route would take me across an open field and over a stream (known locally as Baguley Brook) that ran through it.
As I approached the field I saw that it was covered by dense, thigh high ground mist that completely obscured the grass beneath. It looked quite spooky; if there had been ancient, moss overgrown tombstones rising up out of that mist they wouldn't have looked at all out of place.
I stopped to light a cigarette and check that there wasn't any potential muggers loitering about before stepping from the relative safety of the well lit street out onto the much darker field.
As cold as the night was: somewhere in the low singles Celsius, it did not prepare me for the sub-zero temperature of the mist that penetrated the fabric of my jeans with an icy, crystalline coldness. 'Best not hang around here too long' I thought.
I proceeded carefully as the ground was uneven and I couldn't see where I was putting my feet. Once across the footbridge that spanned the stream I followed a path that diverged, diagonally, away from it at a tangent of about forty five degrees.
It was when I'd reached a position approximately fifty feet from the watercourse that I noticed them.
Two bright points of light skimming about, below the level of the mist, on the bank of the brook – they seemed to be cavorting or playing with one another. This was strange – this was decidedly weird.
'What the f....! is going on here?' I wondered. I stood there a moment watching and shivering. Still watching I lit a cigarette with hands that were trembling almost uncontrollably – it wasn't just the cold. Without thinking I started to walk slowly toward the lights. As I walked I could feel excitement spreading like a physical force throughout my entire body – I was, quite literally, shaking like a leaf.
After covering about half the distance I stopped – I stopped because they had stopped. They were no longer zipping wildly about; they were now hovering with a slight up and down, side to side, motion about three feet apart. Were they aware of me? Was I witnessing some form of sentience here?
From my closer vantage point the lights now took on the appearance of small, opalescent orbs – like tiny stars - but, as they were obscured by the mist, I still couldn't make them out clearly enough to identify exactly what they were or relate them to anything within my own experience.
It was this fact – the not knowing bit – and my growing awareness of the vulnerability of my situation: I was alone - confronted by an otherworldly, perhaps malign, presence - that decided my next move. I wasn't going to approach them any closer. I was going to get the f...! out of there.
As I retreated the orbs reverted to their former behavior: flying about, for what seemed like the sheer fun of it, and circling rapidly around one another.
When I eventually stepped off the field and out of the mist back onto a familiar street I turned and looked to where the lights had been – I could no longer see them.
Should I go back for another look? I was cold to the core, physically aching with tension and sweating profusely - I thought it more prudent to go home, get warm and go to bed. The unknown would have to remain precisely that: unknown - for a little while longer.
Over the ensuing years I have, in my mind's eye, revisited that scene many times. I have also sought explanations (ball lightening?), rationalizations (two guys, hunkered down in the mist, using battery powered model cars to beguile the unwary?) but nothing seems to fully account for what I saw.
As I write this, on a drab gray day in February, I am - in fact - looking out over those same fields; the spot where my otherworldly encounter played out is clearly visible from where I sit. It seems a very ordinary place right now.
The lasting impression I am left with of that night does not solely concern the weirdness of the actual event: my reaction to it - and the 'what if' factor - both haunt me in equal measure. Why did I react with such fear and apprehension to the presence of what were, on the face of it, two tiny innocuous objects?
We are not, after all, born with 'things to fear' hard wired into our brains. Children are, in fact, born fearless and so need to be protected from - and taught to avoid - the everyday dangers that the modern world exposes them to.
There is, however, one fear that some – pedagogues with hidden agendas - insidiously instil in young, impressionable minds. This is the 'fear of the other' which has another name – racism.
This is why we fear ET. We have been predisposed, by design, to regard the extra-terrestrial as being our racial antithesis - our natural enemy. The mechanism that has been used: by those seeking to manipulate our perception of the world, to demonize ET in this manner is really quite easy to understand – they simply cast him in our own image and invest him with our own brutally self-serving motives and behavior.
ET, they would have us believe, is coming here to dispossess and destroy us in much the same way as European explorers went out to the New World - in centuries past - to inflict savagery and enslavement upon the indigenous populations that they found there.
This subliminal message is all pervasive - it even contaminates the intellects of some surprising individuals. Take, for instance, Professor Steven Hawking who: in a TV documentary program about the SETI project, said that we shouldn't be searching for or trying to contact alien civilizations because history teaches us that when a technologically advanced civilization comes into contact with a technologically backward society the latter always suffers, often horrendously, as a result.
The effectiveness of propaganda, for that is what we are dealing with here, depends – entirely – on its ability to engender and perpetuate prejudicial thinking within its target audience. To achieve this propaganda follows two basic rules: keep the message simple and keep on repeating it ad infinitum.
Now because the message must, by necessity, be kept as plain as possible it nearly always consists of one of the following: an over-simplification, a bald statement unsupported by any facts or a flagrant lie. Therein lies propaganda's main weakness – its basic message is always open to attack from academics and intellectuals (disseminating any counter-arguments widely enough to be effective is, however, another matter).
Lets take a look at this basic message – it goes like this: ET is coming here to take something away from us. This basic missive is then broken down into specific variants for delivery through the privately owned and controlled media system.
Before I examine these variants I would ask the reader to accept – as a 'given' – that the extra-terrestrial is much more technologically advanced than we are or, to put it another way, anything we can do (or conceive of doing) ET can do a whole lot better. This will avoid any undue repetition.
Variant 1 – ET is coming here (sometimes from a dying planet) because he wants to make our world his home world.
Scientists are actively researching methods by which an inhospitable planetary environment can be transformed to support human life. This process is called terra-forming; the first candidate for such treatment will be Mars.
Variant 2 – He is coming here to steal out resources/mineral wealth.
Planets are formed from the accretion disks that surround young stars. After planetary systems have become established, however, there is usually still a lot of stuff left over: in the form of asteroids and comets etc, that has not been incorporated into these systems. This stuff is identical, compositionally, to the stuff that makes up the planets - ergo it would be far more practical for ET to capture and mine this dangerous (ask any dinosaur) debris in his own backyard than cross the galaxy to come here and then have to truck it all back home again.
Variant 3 – ET is coming here to enslave us.
This is an easy one. We have factories chock full of robots - the evolution of which continues apace. They are stronger and have more stamina than us - before long they will also be smarter.
Variant 4 - The extra-terrestrial is a plant/parasite that needs to infect a host organism (us) to survive.
Bio-engineering is a science still in its infancy. So far we have only been successful with cloning technology. This will soon change: growing tissue in a laboratory is now achievable - this will be augmented by stem cell research which will, one day, allow us to grow specialized tissue (organs/muscle/bone/blood) and eventually (nightmare scenario?) complete organisms that don't require either donors or parents.
If ET (remember – whatever we can do he can do...) required a host body he would simply make one.
The message, then, does not stand up to scrutiny. We do not possess anything that the extra-terrestrial either wants or needs. We have, therefore, nothing to fear from him.
If the reader has any lingering doubts about that assertion consider this: it is now possible, given the technology and access to information at our disposal, for a single person - or small group of people - to create and deploy a weapon of mass destruction.
Now think of an individual whose lifespan has been extended: by advanced medical technology, far beyond anything that we might reasonably expect - whose
intelligence quotient far outstrips that of an X number of neurally networked quantum computers and who is a card carrying member of a society that has, perhaps, a billion year's worth of scientific achievement stashed away in its footlocker. Think of ET. How much destructive force could he - if he was that way inclined - bring to bear on any perceived enemy?
We can be sure about one thing when it comes to advanced alien civilizations – they have, long ago, foresworn war. The amount of power that such civilizations are able to invest in the individual members of those civilizations renders war obsolete.
So I'll say it again – we have nothing to fear from the extra-terrestrial.
I'll finish with some words of advice. If you ever find yourself facing a situation similar to the one I faced on that November night all those years ago – do not do what I did, do not run away – stand your ground and prepare for an experience that will change your life. Who knows? It might be your experience that changes all our lives.
First contact – bring it on.