They had an established belief that witches were real. And then they forced things they didn't understand into that belief system. ...UFO witnesses and researchers are the "witches" in this story, not the witch accusers.
To turn that on its head:
A widespread belief in witches was real. But witches were not real.
And people did indeed force things they didn't understand into that belief system- mythology and folk belief, Biblical quotes without context, self-serving interpretations of law. Unlikely or inexplicable events were seen as the work of witches.
Witches were blamed for abductions, shadowy meetings at night sometimes witnessed by chance. They had a hidden hand in events.
Those who argued against the existence of witches were on the side of evil, at best foolish apologists who hadn't seen the light.
The belief that alien craft are visiting Earth is real. But there is no testable, objective evidence that Earth is, or ever has been, visited by alien craft: Alien visitation
probably isn't real.
Believers in alien craft force things into that belief system- often references to lasers, quantum physics, plasmas, metamaterials- things which are of active interest to scientists and engineers, things which many other people might have heard of but perhaps with a vaguer understanding. These (to many*) almost magical technologies are associated with aliens.
(I've added some examples below.)
Aliens are blamed for abductions, and shadowy encounters at night witnessed by chance. They, or the few in MJ12 or whatever who really know about them, have a hidden hand in events.
Those who point out the lack of evidence of aliens visiting Earth are shills, disinformation agents, at best closed-minded dogmatists who can't, or are too afraid to, see the truth.
*Including myself
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Some examples of UFO enthusiasts making claims associating what we might consider advanced technologies with UFOs, which don't stand up to examination:
External Quote:
You will see the appendages exiting the orb, you will see the field it is creating.
I've seen orb pics. I've never seen one doing this...
You're going to see the laser systems I discussed. You're going to see the field it creates and you'll see the orb.
Twitter user UAPMax.com @UFOS-UAPS, 21 September 2023, documented
in this thread.
And the big reveal:
A butterfly. And if it's not a butterfly (though local candidate species have been identified)- where's the laser systems? Where's "the field it is creating"? (I'm guessing UAPMax wasn't talking about the butterfly pollinating flowers). (
Thread discussing photo).
Two others, both from Garry P. Nolan, Jacques F. Vallee, Sizun Jiang and Larry G. Lemke,
"Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics." Published in
Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 128, 1 January 2022.
PDF attached below. One claim by those authors:
External Quote:
Spintronics has been previously investigated in US government analysis of unconventional craft in the Defense Intelligence Reference Documents produced under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) program
The cited document for this claim is a list of papers available from
https://irp.fas.org/dia/aatip-list.pdf.
The cited document does
not state
Spintronics has been previously investigated in US government analysis of unconventional craft...
as Nolan, Vallee et al. seem to claim, if we take that claim to mean spintronics technology or knowledge has been applied or found in the examination of actual hardware.
The cited document includes a list of 38 papers mostly concerning "blue sky" research and speculation about future and / or theoretical technologies. It is not a list of papers about, or resulting from, the examination of foreign aircraft or UAP. (All but one, about lasers, are in the public realm).
Of the 38 papers, the only one devoted to spin physics is Maxim Tsoi's "Metallic Spintronics", 2010 (
PDF attached below).
As well as an overview of spin physics, Tsoi's paper proposes utilising electron spin to carry information instead of charge, in order to allow better heat dissipation from the expected increase in transistor density on semiconductor chips- a promising, hopefully practical idea yet to be realised by industry.
There is nothing in Tsoi's paper that could have been used in any practical sense to investigate "unconventional"/ foreign craft at that time (or in 2022).
Metallic Spintronics was written by a scientist with much experience of the field. It contains 97 checkable references. Just as that paper's proposals could not be used in an applied sense to investigate aerospace craft in 2022, there is absolutely no reason
whatsoever to suspect that any part of Metallic Spintronics was dependent on, or informed by, prior examination of aerospace artefacts. No part of that paper describes technology for use in the investigation of aerospace artefacts.
The one citation Nolan, Vallee et al. use to support their claim emphatically does not support their claim.
But there's worse: Nolan, Vallee
et al. claim
...liquid metal designs have been proposed... ...for superconducting airborne platforms [46].
(Their italics).
That reference [46] gives us,
46. Southall, H.L. and C.E. Oberly, "System Considerations for Airborne, High-power Superconducting Generators".
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1979. 15(1): p. 711.
PDF below.
(1) The Southall and Oberly paper is not in any way about "superconducting airborne platforms".
It is not about aircraft design or propulsion.
It is about superconducting airborne generators, i.e. generators for electricity production on board airborne platforms. A generator is not an "airborne platform", an aircraft is. Throughout the Southall/ Oberly paper it is assumed that the power source for the generator is a conventional (aero engine) turbine. Nolan, Vallee et al.'s use of the phrase "superconducting airborne platforms" is misleading, and their use of italics to imply significance unwarranted.
(2) There is
nothing in Southall and Oberly's 1979 paper about liquid metal. Absolutely nothing at all. Throughout the paper it is assumed that windings of superconducting wire are to be used.
The application of multifilament Nb3Sn has permitted a large thermal margin to be designed into the rotating field winding. ...Preliminary selection of a multifilament Nb3Sn cable has resulted from these considerations. The cable will carry 864 amperes at 8.5K and 6.8 Tesla.
(Abstract, pg. 1, Southall and Oberly 1979).
The paper is about relatively conventional late 1970's designs for superconducting generators, as this figure (pg. 1 of PDF, 711 of journal) shows:
Part of the description for the above figure reads,
The electromagnetic shield screens the superconducting field windings from any asynchronous magnetic fields produced by the stator (armature) winding currents
There is nothing in this paper that supports, in any way, its use as a reference in the context that Nolan, Vallee, Jiang and Lemke (2022) use it.
Nolan, Vallee, Jiang and Lemke's representation of the 1979 Southall/ Oberly paper is wholly wrong.
It is almost inconceivable that Nolan, Vallee, Jiang and Lemke all misunderstood the Southall/ Oberly paper.
And it isn't an administrative error, e.g. citing the wrong paper: Like much of the text in "4.1 Liquid metal, MHD and advanced flying vehicles", Nolan, Vallee
et al.'s text about the Southall/ Oberly paper is identical to that used by Vallee in "Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1998.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nolan and Vallee are big names in UFOlogy.
...there is an irrational shunning of the UFO topic
Can you imagine a research paper describing the development of a new medicine misusing cited material like in the 2 examples above?
(And these were by no means the only errors in their 2022 paper; e.g. stating Al-27 was not found in their specimen when it was the most common isotope in 5 out of 6 sub-samples tested; a map where the 4 locations they indicate are
all incorrect...)