Blog

The UFO paradox has no easy solution

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Our government is spending many millions of dollars investigating UFOs (or UAPs).  There are certain paradoxes concerning these phenomena, and it seems that there are more inconsistencies all the time.  This is leading to chaos, confusion, and further distrust of institutions.  The government, to paraphrase President Reagan, is not the solution.  It seems to be the problem. 

The most noticeable paradox is that UFOs, with their supposed advanced technology, should have better stealth than do our supposedly, relatively primitive aircraft, such as the B-2 bomber — but they don’t.  UFOs, if they wish not to be seen, should never be detected at all — or, if they do not care whether they are seen, should be observed very frequently, and under conditions conducive to accurate, detailed photography.  Either one or the other of these should be likely, but neither is the case.

What is least likely is the halfway measure — that is, they only sometimes get seen, but never under conditions that would provide convincing proof of their existence, such as for example as we have with photographs of eagles or hummingbirds.  Instead, all we get are fuzzy, grainy pictures that never persuade reasonable skeptics.

It has long been stated by such skeptics that they would be persuaded of the existence of nonhuman advanced technology if they could see it firsthand, and analyze it, to show that it could not have been created with our present abilities.  Proof would consist of actual specimens of such technology or actual specimens of alien creatures themselves, with demonstrably different biology than anything that could have evolved on Earth.

To date, nothing of the sort has been presented for public examination.

What we have instead is sworn testimony by witnesses that they have seen advanced technology not of human origin — and even seen the aliens themselves.  Despite their high degree of credibility, that is not enough.  There is a disturbing gap, slight, but one in which even they might have been deceived.

We are therefore presented with two extraordinary claims.  One is that our government has in its possession, incontrovertible proof beyond doubt, that there are otherworldly spacecraft in our skies.  The other claim is that numerous expert witnesses of high repute are mistaken, deceived, or lying.  We cannot decide between either of these claims without extraordinary evidence, and that evidence has not been presented to the satisfaction of the public.

How long can this continue?

Our elected representatives have held public hearings that always seem extraordinary but inconclusive.  Those same representatives have also held “closed” secret hearings, in which they say they have heard compelling testimony from eyewitnesses, who offer strong evidence, perhaps extraordinary evidence, that our government has in its hands undeniable proof of the sort that will convince even the hardest skeptics that we have been visited by intelligent creatures from another planet, or even another universe.

Some of the claims are beyond extraordinary, such as that our government is in close communication with alien creatures who are influencing our own technological innovations.

There is an old adage by book reviewers in which the weakness of much science fiction is that when anything can happen, no sense can be made of what does happen.

If the extraordinary claims are true, if there is indisputable evidence, we should either be given it or be given a persuasive reason why it should be withheld.

Having neither, the next logical conclusion for many of us is that our government is up to no good, and/or it is utterly incompetent, or even worse.  What that “even worse” could be might be dreadful.  I will leave that territory to the writers of science fiction.

Keep reading

France & UK Still Insist On Sending Troops To Ukraine, In Effort To Sabotage Trump Peace Plan

As we reported earlier, the important Miami meeting wherein American and Ukrainian delegations hammered out a revised ceasefire draft for some five hours on Sunday did not have European participation. But this is where the real deal-making is taking place. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff is en route to Moscow, where he’s expected to meet with President Putin on Tuesday, in order to present where things stand on the peace plan.

The Miami meeting reportedly focused on where the new de facto border would be in the east, after the 19-point plan featured significant territorial concessions in the Donbass and Crimea. As for Europe, is still touting a “coalition of the willing” which are vowing ongoing military support to the Zelensky government.

At this moment, France and the United Kingdom especially are continuing to push for the deployment of troops from NATO-member states to Ukraine as part of their version of peace settlement, despite this being very obviously unacceptable to Moscow. 

Last week Politico reported that when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined a discussion involving the coalition of the willing via phone call, he made clear to all that the White House wants a peace agreement in place before committing to any long-term security guarantees for Kiev.

But UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer tried to push back, arguing that a “multinational force” would be essential for ensuring Ukraine’s future security.

Bloomberg then followed with a report saying that UK officials have already selected the military units they plan to deploy, based on several reconnaissance trips to Ukraine.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron proposed that such troops could operate in the capital area or western regions of the country, far from the front lines. But this would flagrantly cross all Russia’s red lines. NATO troops on its doorstep was key Putin’s decision-making in launching the ‘special military operation’ in the first place.

It must be recalled that the original US-drafted 28-point peace plan, which leaked to the press and more recently was condensed down to 19 points, included an explicit prohibition on deploying NATO troops to Ukraine.

The European-proposed counter-plan, which was also quickly leaked to the media, greatly softened that stance and laid out that instead of a blanket ban, NATO would not “permanently station troops under its command in Ukraine in peacetime.”

Keep reading

NATO Mulls ‘Preemptive Strike’ Against Russia’s Hybrid Warfare, Claims ‘More Aggression’ Needed

At a moment Washington under President Trump is busy issuing rare calls for restraint, de-escalation, and to enact a peace deal in Ukraine, a top NATO commander says the conflict needs more aggression by the Western military alliance directly against Russia.

Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO’s Military Committee, has told Financial Times as part of a fresh report that NATO is currently mulling more proactive measures in response to Russia’s escalating hybrid warfare. The report cites an alleged rise in Russian-backed cyberattacks, sabotage operations and airspace violations over Europe – which NATO could mirror and more, as any potential “pre-emptive strike” on Russian targets would be justified.

“We are studying everything… On cyber, we are kind of reactive,” Dragone said. “Being more aggressive or being proactive instead of reactive is something that we are thinking about.”

That’s when he explained his view that a “pre-emptive strike” could under certain circumstances and context be classified as a defensive action. “It is further away from our normal way of thinking and behavior,” he conceded.

“Being more aggressive compared with the [aggressiveness] of our counterpart could be an option” – but he said that the questions that remain are: “legal framework, jurisdictional framework, who is going to do this?”

Multiple diplomats and officials from Eastern European and Baltic states are calling for this more proactive stance, or a less merely ‘reactive’ approach, to make Moscow feel real pain.

“If all we do is continue being reactive, we just invite Russia to keep trying, keep hurting us,” one Baltic diplomat was quoted in the FT as complaining.

“Hybrid warfare is asymmetric – it costs them little, and us a lot. We need to be more inventive,” the diplomat said.

And yet, there already have been years of covert sabotage operations in place, aimed at Russia and overseen by the West. These efforts, some which long ago were exposed in mainstream publications, are a large reason of why there’s been constant escalation of the Ukraine war. 

This has in turn resulted in escalation of nuclear rhetoric and threats between Russia and the West. But the temperature needs to be drastically turned down, but these latest comments by the chair of NATO’s Military Committee will only do the opposite.

Keep reading

“Bronze Age People Didn’t Do That”: English Team Unearths “Unprecedented” Evidence of 4500-Year-Old Ancient Monument

British archaeologists have made a discovery they believe points to an unusual ancient monument that once stood in Northwest England 4,500 years ago.

The unique find, made by avocational archaeologists with the Wigan Archaeological Society, was discovered on a farm in the Greater Manchester area, after aerial photography of the region revealed an unusual, dark circular area in a farmer’s field.

Initial excavations at the discovery site had revealed what the Wigan team believed to be a burial site near Aspull, a village in the greater Wigan area. However, further studies at the site have revealed that there may be more to this ancient English mystery.

“We think it’s been repurposed from an earlier monument,” said Bill Aldridge, a member of the Wigan Archaeological Society, in a statement. Aldridge and others say the unique evidence they have unearthed, which includes a massive, oval-shaped ring ditch encircling the area, points to the existence of “a neolithic henge” that once stood there.

Such structures were unique to the Neolithic period and were not associated with later groups that occupied the area.

“Bronze Age people didn’t do that,” Aldridge recently told the BBC about his team’s discovery.

Keep reading

Did A German Court Just Shatter One Of The Biden Era’s Biggest Lies

It is often said that “the first casualty when war comes is truth.” A criminal warrant just issued in Germany shows that war continues to claim its victims. However, this warrant could prove to be as great an indictment not just of the government of Volodymyr Zelensky, but also of former President Joe Biden.

This week, a German court issued an arrest warrant for Ukrainian Serhii Kuznietsov, which may finally confirm what was long suspected: that Ukraine was responsible for the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in the waters near Denmark and Sweden.

The Biden administration may have been given prior warning. It was allegedly told years ago by a Ukrainian whistleblower that a six-person team of Ukrainian special forces was planning to rent a boat, dive to the sea floor and blow up the Nord Stream project. The operation was reportedly led by Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

Nevertheless, after the attack, the Biden administration and many in the media fueled speculation that Russia had destroyed its own pipeline, despite evidence and logic to the contrary.

It was another convenient claim of a Russian false-flag operation that allowed the Biden administration to ignore the possibility that Ukraine had not only engaged in environmental crimes but had also knowingly lied to its allies.

For years, some of us have questioned the official account from the Biden administration about the available evidence of those responsible.

The suggestion of a Russian attack on a Russian pipeline never seemed logical.

However, the administration was funneling billions in support for Ukraine, funding that now exceeds an estimated $180 billion.

Having Ukraine sabotage pipelines to our allies would hardly be opportune when many were questioning the costs to U.S. citizens.

The Biden administration was not alone in running interference for Ukraine, as Zelensky denied responsibility despite mounting evidence to the contrary. When another alleged Ukrainian saboteur was found in Poland, a Polish court blocked the extradition to Germany and ordered his release. The reason? The judge did not base the decision on Ukrainian denials. Instead, he declared that the act had been committed in the name of a just war. (Poland remains the frontline against Russian aggression in Europe).

An Italian court did not engage in such rationalization. It ordered the extradition of Kuznietsov, believed to be a key figure in the conspiracy. The attack involved leasing a yacht in the German port of Rostock, using forged IDs and a screen of intermediaries. Kuznietsov insists that he was an army captain serving in Ukraine at the time.

If the investigators are correct, it was not just the Ukrainian government that was lying to us. Biden was also presumably informed by the intelligence agencies of this evidence. Yet Biden kept suggesting anyway that the Russians were covering up the truth. He told the public, “The Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies. We will work with our allies to get to the bottom [of precisely what happened] Just don’t listen to what Putin’s saying. What he’s saying we know is not true.”

Ironically, even if we were told about this evidence, the public might still have supported the commitment to Ukraine. After all, Ukraine is the victim of a horrendous invasion that has involved repeated charges of war crimes against the Russian forces. However, the public has a legitimate expectation that a country that is receiving billions in support will not engage in environmental attacks on our allies. These pipelines were in the economic zone of two NATO countries.

As the Germans work to find the truth, the question is whether the American public will ever be given transparency on our own government’s alleged complicity or knowledge. The public was asked to pump billions into a war while the administration allegedly covered up an attack by Ukraine on a Western pipeline — and then may have misled the public.

Keep reading

Psychedelics produce enduring behavioral effects and functional plasticity through mechanisms independent of structural plasticity

Activation of serotonin 2A (5-HT2A) receptors is thought to underly the long-lasting antidepressant effects of psychedelics such as psilocybin, but beyond that, the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved are not well understood. Recent preclinical studies using mice have primarily examined relatively short time points after psychedelic administration, which does not address the long-lasting effects of psilocybin in humans (i.e., several months or more). We utilized a rat experimental system to demonstrate that both psilocybin and the selective 5-HT2A receptor agonist 25CN-NBOH reduce immobility in the forced swim test without a decrease in effect size for at least three months after a single administration of the psychedelic. There were no overt behavioral differences between psilocybin and 25CN-NBOH treated animals, suggesting 5-HT2A receptor activation is sufficient to produce long-lasting behavioral changes. Functional cellular plasticity in neurons from the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) of these animals was assessed using brain slice electrophysiology. Functional plasticity was evident for both psychedelics several months after treatment, and Layer 5 excitatory pyramidal neurons demonstrated significant changes in resting membrane potential, firing rates, and synaptic excitation. Recorded neurons were examined by microscopy for synaptic density and spine classification, which found no differences between control and psychedelic-treated. Gene expression studies for several presynaptic and postsynaptic markers in the mPFC indicated no differences in expression between groups. Together, our results indicate a single treatment with a psychedelic is sufficient to elicit very long-lasting behavioral and cellular changes through enduring function plasticity rather than structural plasticity.

Keep reading

Feds Launch New Marijuana-Focused Ad Campaign To ‘Challenge The Dangerous Belief’ That People Drive Better While High

The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Ad Council are rolling out a new campaign to “challenge the dangerous belief that it’s safe to drive after consuming marijuana,” with a disturbing ad that they say depicts a real-life story of a child killed by a driver who was under the influence of cannabis.

In an announcement on Tuesday, the Ad Council promoted the “Tell That to Them” initiative, which includes a 60-second ad showing a person claiming they “focus” better when driving while high and then causing a fatal car accident.

“I actually drive better when I’m high,” the man says. “If anything, I’m more careful, more chill, more relaxed.”

He is then shown driving head-on into an incoming car.

DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) partnered with the Ad Council for the campaign.

“Too many young men think marijuana doesn’t affect their driving ability or even makes them safer drivers,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said in a press release. “That couldn’t be further from the truth.”

“Marijuana slows down a driver’s reaction time and impairs their coordination and judgement,” he said. “This new PSA reminds motorists that driving high puts us all at risk and can have deadly consequences.”

Keep reading

Tampon Tim Walz Says Kamala Harris Would Be a Strong 2028 Candidate 

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz went on  Meet the Press, and delivered a predictable message: criticize President Donald Trump’s leadership and elevate Kamala Harris as a viable Democratic standard-bearer for 2028. 

What Walz attempted to present as a thoughtful analysis quickly became an exercise in revisionism, because the record of the last administration does not support the argument he tried to make.

As the Gateway Pundit previously reported, Walz opened by attacking President Trump’s decision to close Venezuelan airspace. 

He called the action “reckless,” insisted Americans should “be concerned,” and portrayed the move as the behavior of someone “incapable of doing the job.” 

The problem for Walz is that the American people have seen this pattern before. 

Every time President Trump takes decisive foreign-policy action, Democrats label it “dangerous” rather than acknowledge the underlying national-security threat. 

Venezuela’s instability, the presence of cartel-linked factions, and the movement of foreign-backed militias inside the country are active threats that require swift executive action—something President Trump has consistently provided and Democrats consistently oppose.

From there, Walz attempted to rewrite Kamala Harris’s political standing. 

Kristen Welker asked him the direct question: does he still believe Harris is the strongest Democratic candidate for 2028? 

Walz immediately praised her, claiming she “makes life affordable,” “brings people in,” and strengthens the party’s “inclusive vision.” 

What he did not address were the measurable outcomes of Harris’s actual time in office.

Harris was assigned to oversee border-migration coordination in 2021. 

The result was the worst border crisis in modern U.S. history. Illegal encounters reached unprecedented levels.

Fentanyl trafficking expanded to the point where it became the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–45. 

Major cities issued emergency declarations because their systems could not absorb the influx. Walz did not mention any of this on Meet the Press.

Instead, he presented Harris as a stabilizing force when her record shows the opposite.

Keep reading

Future Of Fertility Chronically Overestimated

The newly released OECD Pensions at a Glance report shows how fertility projections have been wrong again and again over the years, grossly underestimating how much fertility would decline each time.

As fertility rates and pension funds are intrinsically tied, this can cause problems down the line, when incoming payments from workers to pension funds are smaller than expected and payouts to current pensioners exceed them.

As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz shows in the following data, the lifetime births per woman in OECD countries sank from 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 1994.

You will find more infographics at Statista

At the time, demographers estimated that the rate would recover up to around 2.1 by the middle of the upcoming century.

By 2002, births rates had declined to 1.66, yet a recovery to 1.85 by 2047 was once again expected.

By 2012, there was actually a slight recovery back up to 1.75 births per women, prompting demographers to expect the number of births to rise to an average of 1.8 per woman by 2050.

Yet, birth rates started to fall again to below 1.5 by 2024, the latest year on record.

Still, the tale of recovering fertility has not been eliminated, as birth numbers are currently projected to rise again, albeit only slightly, to 1.52 by 2050 and 1.54 by 2070.

Many scientists now see the official UN demographic forecasts as conservative estimates and believe that the world population will actually shrink significantly faster than they project.

 A 2020 study published in The Lancet actually calculates that contrary to what UN figures say the world population will have shrunk by 2100 and could potentially already be significantly lower than it is today.

While population growth has been studied at length and models in this field tend to be more reliable, less work has been done on the newer topic of population decline, making calculations more unreliable.

Keep reading

The Same Democrats Who Said NOTHING When Obama Drone-Bombed 16-yr-Old US Citizen Al-Awlaki Are Furious About Trump Bombing Dangerous Venezuelan Cartel Members in a Boat

Al-Qaeda leader and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen in September 2011 in a targeted strike.
Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and attended college in Colorado.

Obama dropped a bomb on his head.

In May 2012 The New York Times revealed that Barack Obama was the official who actually made the final call on US drone strikes.

Seven months before the New York Times report, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen from Denver, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in October 2011.

Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was the son of terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi. He did not have a trial.  He was sixteen.

Barack Obama dropped a bomb on his head.

In January 2020, the United States killed General Qassim Soleimani, a top commander of Iran’s al-Quds Force, in an airstrike at Baghdad’s International Airport. The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. Seven people were reportedly killed in the airstrike.

Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of dozens of US military men and women in Iraq.

Speaker Pelosi, Democrats and the fake news media were outraged over the death of the world’s number one terrorist.

The media and Democrats hammered President Trump all day.

Keep reading