The Epistemology of UFOs - No Longer a Matter of Belief?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Following up on a July 23, 2020 New York Times article on official investigations into airspace incursions by unknown aircraft, reporters Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean have co-authored a follow-up piece titled "Do We Believe in U.F.O.s? That’s the Wrong Question."

Article:
We’re often asked by well-meaning associates and readers, “Do you believe in U.F.O.s?” The question sets us aback as being inappropriately personal. Times reporters are particularly averse to revealing opinions that could imply possible reporting bias.

But in this case we have no problem responding, “No, we don’t believe in U.F.O.s.”

As we see it, their existence, or nonexistence, is not a matter of belief.


They then go on to make a rather unusual definition of UFO:

Article:
U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.


Which is, quite frankly, nonsense. The vast majority of UFO sightings are slow-moving blobs or lights that are simply too far away to be identified. Some accounts, like the 2004 experience of David Fravor, describe highly unusual (if not impossible) capabilities, but that's the exception, not the rule. "Unidentified" means "not identified"

It is a remarkable claim for a New York Times reporter to make, that they are somehow immune to making any kind of value judgment on the information they present. They (and I suspect this is largely Blumenthal, as he is highly engaged in the article comments) seems to be claiming they are presenting only immutable facts when in actuality they present mostly the opinions of other people that they claim are reputable. In other words, they believe these people are reputable.

Some examples from the comments:

Article:
Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@LesISmore We are aware of government UFO disinformation efforts over the years but we are as sure as one can be that our information is genuine based on highly reliable sources, some of whom are outside government.

Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@K Kfishna I believe MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network, collects such figures.

Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@David Stevens Jacques Vallee is an outstanding intellectual in the field and I pay attention to everything he says.

Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@James clarke We understand there are more videos but we have not seen them.


So Blumenthal does not "believe" things, instead, he is "aware of" things, and "as sure as one can be" about things, and he "understands" things. Unfortunately, he's unable to demonstrate things, he's also unable to even give exact quotes from his sources, much less say who those sources are, or how exactly they know what they say they believe they know.

Perhaps the most telling things here Blumenthal's statement that "Jacques Vallee is an outstanding intellectual in the field and I pay attention to everything he says." Now, people have asked me in the past why the government spends money researching odd subjects like UFOs. I respond saying it's a combination of two things: firstly, the very real problem of unidentified aircraft, possibly of novel types belonging to foreign adversaries, violating secure airspace, and secondly, wishful thinking by UFO fans, like Harry Reid.

Jacques Vallee is an interesting figure here. He's the original source for the French scientist portrayed in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But he does not actually believe in conventional alien visitors - instead:
Article:
Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time. The phenomenon has been active throughout human history, and seems to masquerade in various forms to different cultures. In his opinion, the intelligence behind the phenomenon attempts social manipulation by using deception on the humans with whom they interact.

Vallée also proposes that a secondary aspect of the UFO phenomenon involves human manipulation by humans. Witnesses of UFO phenomena undergo a manipulative and staged spectacle, meant to alter their belief system, and eventually, influence human society by suggesting alien intervention from outer space.

So Valee thinks that UFOs are fake, but they are faked both by "a form of non-human consciousness" and separately by some human conspiracy. That Blumenthal says he pays attention to everything that Vallee says cast some doubt on his assistance that he's a mere conduit of facts unsullied by beliefs. It seems particularly at odd with their statement of "Times reporters are particularly averse to revealing opinions that could imply possible reporting bias." This opinion about Vallee very much does imply reporting bias, as does the presentation in the previous article of Eric W. Davis as some kind of authority from the Pentagon.

I believe that both Blumenthal and Kean are, essentially, taking advantage of the veneer of respectability offered by being a "New York Times Reporter" to promote things that they personally believe. I suspect that the apparent heavy-handed editing of their previous article shows that the more conventional New York Times staff has some misgivings about this.

Why did I title this "The Epistemology of UFOs?" Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. I'd avoided talking about epistemology until the end of this piece because once a discussion devolves into epistemology then it's all semantics and it's essentially over. Yet Blumenthal's and Kean's piece is essentially one of those discussion-killing devolutions. They claim not to "believe" in UFOs, but instead to know that UFOs "demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology" They present this, with a quote from Magaret Mead as something as factual as "the sun or the moon, or the changing seasons, or the chairs they’re sitting on."

In epistemology, knowledge is often defined as "justified true belief." Knowledge is something about the world that we believe to be true, and actually is true, and our belief in that truth is justified by the evidence available to us. Facts are facts, beliefs can be wrong, knowledge is made of facts that have correctly found their way into our brains. But what do Blumenthal and Kean know? Nothing concrete. Nothing they can share with us. Their three videos have diminished in interest under analysis. They don't actually demonstrate any interesting materials recovered from crashed sites. They only have the words of people they believe.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Odd to see old dead things from the '70's dredged up. I never expected to hear about Jacques Vallee again. He was a nuts and bolts flying saucer kind of guy, but drifted into Contactee territory, then settled into a theory that is very similar to the current "targeted individual" concept. He specialized in collecting UFO reports that would ordinarily be reported as a straight forward nuts and bolts case and then add on comments about how "dream like" the witness testimony was. This was meant to be supporting evidence for his theory about some unknown trans-dimensional agency staging odd experiences to do... what? He couldn't say. I interpreted this as someone who lost his faith in flying saucers but couldn't give up on the mystery aspect. He found something perfectly untestable.

A UFOlogist treating us to defensive, over the top expressions of certainty is nothing new, certainly.
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
They then go on to make a rather unusual definition of UFO:

Article:
U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.
I think most posters (including myself) on a debunking website, read "U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens"
and think: "Yes! Boy, I've found myself having to make that point far too many times over the years!"

But "...they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology"!!!
I had literally never heard any definition like that.

I don't pretend to know much about Blumenthal or Vallee...but this "...demonstrate capabilities..."
part is too radical to swallow.
 

Jon Adams

Member
Following up on a July 23, 2020 New York Times article on official investigations into airspace incursions by unknown aircraft, reporters Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean have co-authored a follow-up piece titled "Do We Believe in U.F.O.s? That’s the Wrong Question."

Article:
U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.
This is nonsense. Unidentified Flying Object means exactly what it says, without some subtle (or not) nuance. Nothing about technology, aliens, or capabilities.

Cheers - Jon N7UV
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
I'm, once again, going to recommend The UFO Handbook

https://www.amazon.com/Ufo-Handbook...o+handbook+allan+hendry&qid=1596270354&sr=8-1


Anyone who is interested in the subject should own a copy.

Hendry was hired as a full time investigator by J. Allen Hynek. He only investigated "live" cases, not historical cases. He was sometimes able to convert UFO's to IFO's in real time as they were still in the air (e.g. a formation of 3 National Guard planes with illuminated tails, flying around a town as a promotional thing).

Hendry was able to identify 95% of all the cases he investigated. He also went on to say that he could find no fundamental difference between the solved and the unsolved cases.

It was pointed out, by Robert Sheaffer, that 5%...

...well I'm going to stop right there because I was going to write some technical stuff about analytical statistics which would take paragraphs to clarify. So I'll make this as simple as possible.

In a Psychology experiment, you assume that 5% of your data is unusable because it's a quirky field, and your data is going to be quirky. This 5% figure matches the percentage of raw cases Hendry couldn't solve. From the beginning you would expect 5% of cases to remain unsolved, when nothing strange is going on. You would expect 5% of your data to be garbled, or unusable when you are dealing with a quirky thing like UFO sightings; something which involves human psychology and human perception. In other words the 5% figure supports the idea that nothing strange is going on. This 5% of unsolved cases is pretty consistent with all historical cases.

By the 70's UFO Believers conceded that 95% of UFO cases are solvable, but they insisted that the remaining 5% represent a "hard core" - the real flying saucer sightings. But this is a fallacy. Would they expect that 100% of cases which are spawned by misidentified objects/phenomena - plus hoaxes! - would be solvable? The 5% of unsolved cases is not a "hard core" of "genuine" UFO cases.

This idea is just as applicable to Vallee's theory as it is to nuts and bolts flying saucers. I wonder if Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean are sufficiently up on their UFO History as to have heard of this point Sheaffer made. At the time I don't think there was anyone in the field who hadn't heard about it. The Believers either ducked the question or offered some non-sequitur in response, but they all knew about it.

In any case they are ignoring the question of whether the objects they are talking about really did the things they were reported to do. Is there anyone who isn't aware that honest witnesses can be mistaken about what they think they are seeing? Or that many UFO cases involving radar have been resolved? Or that memory is fallible?
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Clearly Alien Technology
Source: https://youtu.be/pX4mlgwSKd4?t=2266



Corrected
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
This is nonsense. Unidentified Flying Object means exactly what it says, without some subtle (or not) nuance. Nothing about technology, aliens, or capabilities.

Cheers - Jon N7UV

it is nonsense. which is why -in my opinion- it is much more likely people are reacting to bad writing, which is possibly causing them to misinterpret what was meant in the article. The article is specifically focusing on the "Pentagon UFO program" (and probably more specifically AATIP- since they have a screen shot of a AATIP slide), and what the authors consider "ufos", since the question was asked to them.

This is a good example of why you can't assign meaning/motivation to other people's words without full context or being able to ask follow up questions.

the full quote:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The article is specifically focusing on the "Pentagon UFO program" (and probably more specifically AATIP- since they have a screen shot of a AATIP slide), and what the authors consider "ufos", since the question was asked to them.

The question asked of them (Kean and Blumenthal) was "Do you believe in U.F.O.s?" and their response was that "in this case, [no, because we are just looking at facts, not beliefs]"

Nobody asked them what their definition of UFOs was, or about the distinction between "belief" and "a vigilant search for facts" - and it's not even really clear what their article is supposed to clarify.

I think this is more than bad writing. It's emblematic of two common issues that we see in many of the topics Metabunk covers.

1) Just Asking Questions - typically: "Oh no, I'm not suggesting that, I'm just asking questions" - a way of advocating for a belief without actually committing to it. 9/11 Truthers won't say how they think the building collapsed, they just think that the NIST explanation is flawed, Flat Earthers won't say what map of the Earth looks like, they just think the globe explanation does not fit, UFO fans won't say it's aliens, they are just asking why there's these craft flying around that transcend know human technology.

2) Premature Elimination - typically: "It's not A, B, or C, so it must be either Y or Z." This is a rush towards a preferred conclusion based on overly-hasty elimination of proposed convention explanations (A, B, C) by the unquestioning acceptance of some "facts" that seem incompatible with those explanations. With 9/11 we have "WTC7 fell too fast, so it's not just from fire." With chemtrails, we have "the trails persist for too long, so they are not contrails." With UFO's we have "it has no wings, so it's not a plane", or "it accelerated at over 1000g, so it's not a human craft we are aware of"

There several factors in Premature Elimination - "experts don't make mistakes" being a common one here, then there's "multi-million dollar equipment does not have bugs", "how could lots of different people be wrong?", "A, B, and C, seem not to really fit", or perhaps the worst factor "we can't say for sure if it's A, B or C, so we are going with Z"

The last paragraph exemplifies some of these issues:

If AAV does not refer to vehicles made in any country, then what do we have other than aliens? Vehicles made by a rogue scientist?

And what does "truly unexplained" mean here? Remember an older article by Kean:
Article:
An exceptional nine-minute Navy video of a UFO displaying highly unusual behavior, studied by Chilean authorities for the last two years, is now being released to the public.
...
General Ricardo Bermúdez, Director of CEFAA during the investigation, told me that “We do not know what it was, but we do know what it was not.” And “what it is not” comprises a long list of conventional explanations.
...
Air Force photo analysts confirmed that the object was a real, three dimensional form with volume and that it “has control in its movements.” It was not affected by the winds, reflected the light, and threw out “some kind of energy.” They established that there was no evidence of hoaxing or of “alteration of the video by any computer application in the editing and processing of the images.” They also ruled out a bird, flying insect, drone, parachute or hang glider. “It can be concluded that the object has all the characteristics to be classified as an unidentified aerial phenomenon” wrote Alberto Vergara, the lead analyst from the Air Force Photogrammetric Department.
...
“This has been one of the most important cases in my career as director of CEFAA because our Committee was at its best, “ General Bermúdez said in an email. “The CEFAA is well regarded partly because there is full participation from the scientists of the academic world, the armed forces through their representatives, and the aeronautic personnel from the DGAC, including its Director. I am extremely pleased as well with the conclusion reached which is logical and unpretentious.” The official conclusion was that “the great majority of committee members agreed to call the subject in question a UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) due to the number of highly researched reasons that it was unanimously agreed could not explain it.”
...
I am grateful to General Bermúdez for giving me access to the outstanding CEFAA case files, inviting me to attend meetings there, and for his time in answering my questions. He has left a tremendous legacy with regards to the serious study of UAP and the official recognition of a real unexplained phenomenon in our skies.


Looks like an astonishing confirmation of UFOs by official sources. Yet a few days after the video was released, the object was unequivocally identified as a plane. Iberian flight 6830.

Kean may well claim, or even believe, that she was simply dispassionately investigating facts, just repeating what the experts told her. But she, and her experts, got that one dead wrong. It does not seem entirely unreasonable that her own beliefs might have been a factor in that.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
[...]
I interpret what they are saying in this article as- It's a fact that strange, unexplained things are going on.

Why? Because of the reference to Jacques Vallee.
wikipedia

If they are following Vallee's theory, the phrase "do not appear to be possible" would mean this: The witnesses are being tricked into seeing things that appear to defy the laws of physics. The objects are actually induced hallucinations, or "projections" or... something unimaginable. The real mystery is who these unknown non-humans are and why they are doing this.

They seem to be leaving open the possibility that the objects are physical and really do defy the laws physics as we know them and... are displayed to people to confuse them, and through them the human race in general.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think this is more than bad writing. It's emblematic of two common issues that we see in many of the topics Metabunk covers.

i agree with everything you wrote, but i was only commenting on their personal definition of what they are considering when they say UFOs they personally consider noteworthy. I think it is a legitimate clarification, that ties directly to the question.

The rest of the article, imo, does seem to make clear they definitely believe in aliens. or at the very least they want to continue to make money off people who do believe in aliens.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I interpret what they are saying in this article as- There are definitely strange unexplained things going on.

Why? Because of the reference to Jacques Vallee.
That reference was by Blumenthal in the comments, not that article itself. There were actually three, so for completeness:

So basically saying Vallee is " a deep and original thinker," " an outstanding intellectual in the field," and along with Pasulka, "intrepid researchers and deep thinkers."
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
So are we all in agreement that they are rejecting - or more properly, completely ignoring - the skeptical hypothesis? - UFO cases could all be resolved if our data were complete.

And are instead insisting that it's a fact there is something unexplainable going on.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So are we all in agreement that they are rejecting - or more properly, completely ignoring - the skeptical hypothesis? - UFO cases could all be resolved if our data were complete.
If that's the "the skeptical hypothesis", then they rightly reject it. That's a ridiculously all-encompassing truism.

And are instead insisting that it's a fact there is something unexplainable going on.
Again, that's a bit poorly defined. Is it even possible for something to be unexplainable if you have "complete" data?

It's really not clear what their position is. But they are just asking questions, and they seem to be prematurely eliminating a variety of hypotheses.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Okay, I'm struggling to make definitions that aren't paragraphs long.

UFO Skeptic - There's nothing "strange" going on. UFO cases are all spawned by misidentified natural objects, natural phenomena, man made objects; or by atmospheric quirks, psychological quirks, radar quirks, photographic quirks, memory quirks, hoaxes... and what else?

UFO Believer - There is something very strange going on. Eyewitnesses have seen real - flying saucers, inter-dimensional ships, Jungian projections, Earthly beings our ancestors called fairies, angels, demons, ghosts, or ???? Or have encountered real ET's, inter-dimensional beings, Earthly beings our ancestors called fairies, or ???? through telepathy, or in dreams, or in altered states of consciousness, or in past life experience intruding on present time, or ????

Or you could sum it up this way:

Skeptic: You're making a mistake.
Believer: I'm not making a mistake. This is real.
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

New Member
The problem with UFOology right now is they have placed all there beliefs on statements by scientists who have had very very questionable pasts.
Scientists who have been called out for literally decades for their "crackpot" science

Yet since they have PHD's , people point to them and claim that what they say must be true.

Fact of the matter is that the defense forces have always spent a little money on fringe topics. Remote viewing , Telkinesis etc.
And it hasn't been hard for them to find the questionable scientists to perform such studies.
And if you go back through newspaper clippings the government has always been critisized for it by the public for spending money on rubbish.
It's nothing new . To be fair the defense forces have said that in their endevour for discovery they leave no stone unturned , and sometimes that means investigating things that turn out to be nonsense

To further muddy things, a lot of these questionable studies were put out as propaganda. Especially throughout the cold war.

The issue with UFOology right now is "Belief Bias" I believe, therefor I only see things that backup what I believe.
You see it throughout UFOology. One example in regards to the Navy UFO's is this "we must believe what service men say" as they have credibility. But then you have the Navy Gimble UFO video where they discount entirely what the WSO says when he says "It's a drone Bro"
Nothing shows that more than this embarrasing video. At 3:05 in, Richard Doty says his job was to BS people and tell them they saw Alien craft to cover for top secret US aircraft they actually saw. Staggeringly, they then ask ask him if he has seen Alien technology to which Doty says yes. And they are like totally believing it. I mean , it's embarassing and highlights everything wrong with UFOology today

Source: https://youtu.be/jwTCwebi-6Q?t=184
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Member
I agree with much that has been said above. And I agree with others that the definition they gave of UFO is just poor writing and would be fixed by saying that they "appear to defy the laws of physics".

I think this sums up the article pretty well:

In our reporting, we’ve focused on how the Department of Defense, the Office of Naval Intelligence and members of two Senate committees are engaged with this topic. Current officials are now concerned about the potential threat represented by the very real, advanced technological objects: how close they can come to our fighter jets, sometimes causing a near miss, and the risk that our adversaries may acquire the technology demonstrated by the objects before we do.

I think they are simply saying that from their investigations the DoD and ONI consider that they have sufficient evidence to establish that those objects are "real". And that to establish the nature of those objects one should study them with no preconceptions.

The military definitely has a clearer picture of what happened with some of those incidents. They should have full and detailed radar data for example from multiple sources and witnesses. Complete tapes and telemetry. The fact they say still regard those incidents as unexplained is anomalous. One way or the other.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Matt33 UFOs filmed from ISS. Starlink Satellites? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
D [Possible explanation] Kevin Day (Nimitz tictac ufos) radar encounter UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West TFTRH #34 - Stian Arnesen: Debunking, Censorship, 9/11, and UFOs Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
TheoryQED El ROsario UFO spawning smaller UFOs- Filmed from two angles simultaneously [CGI] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Mick West "UAP" Causes Lockdown of White House UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH #24: Nick Pope – Area 51, UFOs and UFOlogy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 13
Mick West TFTRH #23: Ian/TheoryQED: UFOs, Government Cover-ups, and Alien Visitors. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 32
Mick West Are the Navy UFOs "Real," or just in the Low Information Zone? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 31
Mick West TFTRH #22: Seth Shostak: SETI Senior Astronomer: ETs, UFO "Disclosure" Area 51 Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 3
Mick West Explained: "UFOS" in Donald Trump's Crowd Photo on 4th of July UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West TFTRH #3 & #4 - Stian Arnesen, 9/11, Crop Circles, and Debunkers Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 28
Mick West "Golden Orb" Daytime Reflective Sphere UFOs in Photos UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 42
Mick West UFOs Filmed from Moving Helicopters and Planes. Not So Fast! UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
Mick West Multiple UFOs Fly Across Moon- Birds? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
Mick West Explained: A Dozen Or More Southern Valley UFOs UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West The role of Canopy reflections in Pilot Accounts of UFOs UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 11
Mick West Purple UFOs/Beams in Arizona [Insects] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Trailblazer "UFOs" in sky over London [internal camera reflection] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
mickbubbamack Ufos Spokane Washington air show July 2017 [Birds] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ruben Lianza Aguadilla Infrared Footage of 'UFOs' - Hot Air Wedding Lanterns Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 26
Mick West Some Perspective on Perspective Foreshortening - Contrails and UFOs Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West Argentina's Committee for Aerospace Phenomenae Research (CEFAe) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West Explained: Moon Terminator/Shadow UFOs UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
ki_cz "UFOs" from plane over Chicago Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Santa's sidekick Chemtrails, NWO, and UFOs: How many believers do these CTs have? General Discussion 72
Sagittarius The Ariel School, Zimbabwe UFO sighting - has it ever been debunked? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 27
Mick West Identifying Landing Lights Reported as UFOs Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 42
CapnPegleg Debunked: Boyd Bushman, Area 51 scientist, claims existence of aliens in deathbed video [Hoax] Conspiracy Theories 16
Mick West Debunked: Chemtrail "Laser Line" and 4 UFOs Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jason UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites (Malmstrom) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 59
Rroval Video: US Government Admits UFOs in Press Conference | Disclosure UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
sgirl Col. Richard French of the USAF States his Job was to Debunk UFOs - Citizen Hearing Conspiracy Theories 6
George B Debunk Bigelow Aerospace is Obsessed with UFOs and ETs General Discussion 11
Mick West Debunked: Denver UFOs [Insects] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 11
tryblinking Dead birds? UFOs? Chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West ATS: UFOs? No UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Explained: UFOs that look like flares or fireworks [Aerobatic planes with wingtip pyrotechnics] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
R Utah "Flat Eath" Frozen Lake Experiment Shows Light Visible over Longer Distance than Expected Flat Earth 8
MyMatesBrainwashed BBC - Longer flights to curb vapour trails Contrails and Chemtrails 144
Mick West Recent Activity: Removed "Likes", longer snippets Site Feedback & News 9
TornadoTom Debunking Haarp is the reason for longer daylight hours HAARP 3
Related Articles













































Related Articles

Top