Thursday, January 23, 2014

Arizona's Amazing Telepathic Flying Triangle on Discovery Canada

The second segment of the second episode of Discovery Canada's reality-challenged series Close Encounters served up the famous Arizona Flying Triangle, the first half of the famous Phoenix Lights episode of March 13, 1997.  (Most accounts of these incidents conflate the two of them. One hearty cheer for Close Encounters for keeping them separate!)
The triangle, as depicted in Close Encounters. Most observers reported five lights. I counted 33 here.

The story as told depicts peoples' descriptions of the supposed "triangle," and their reactions to it. The Talking Heads in this segment were David Marler, former MUFON state director for Illinois, and Larry Lowe, described as a "journalist, pilot and witness." Neither is terribly well-known in UFOlogy, although Marler is a scheduled speaker for the forthcoming International UFO Congress near Scottsdale, Arizona, which I will be attending. Marler called this case "unique" because, he said, we have potentially thousands of eyewitnesses. But that means very little. Many people had gone outdoors to watch the bright comet Hale-Bopp, which was then near its greatest brightness. Clearly something flew over Arizona that evening between approximately 8:00 and 9:00, but the number of people who saw it adds nothing to its significance.

The episode tells of several witnesses' reactions to the strange, noiseless lights. The Johnson family thinks that the object "seems to be sending a transmission" to them, a "personal communication" from whatever "intelligence" is inside the object. Wow!

What did all of these people see? As investigative reporter Tony Ortega wrote in "The Great UFO Cover-up" in the Phoenix New Times on June 26, 1997, about three months after the incident, "Scottsdale resident Mitch Stanley knows what the March 13 "UFO" was. But will anyone listen?" Mitch Stanley, then 21, was outside observing with his ten-inch reflecting telescope. Because the Dobsonian mount of his telescope moves flexibly and freely, he was able to examine the lights under magnification. He clearly saw that they were airplanes: “What looked like individual lights to the naked eye actually split into two under the resolving power of the telescope. The lights were located on the undersides of squarish wings, Mitch says.” Stanley tried to give his account to reporters and local politicians who were making big deal out of the sightings, but nobody paid any attention to him, until he finally spoke to Ortega.

Later the retired Air Force Major and UFO skeptic James McGaha interviewed Stanley at length. Stanley was not familiar with the appearance of the A-10 aircraft, but the description he gave left McGaha with no doubt that he had seen a flight of A-10 Warthogs, a plane that McGaha worked with at Davis-Monthan AFB. These aircraft are used by Air National Guard units across the U.S. McGaha notes that the A-10 is the quietest jet that the Air Force has, so it is not surprising that many witnesses heard nothing.
A-10 aircraft flying in formation
UFO Skeptic Tim Printy found and interviewed yet another observer whose account has been ignored by UFO proponents. Rich Contry was driving west that evening on I-40 north of Prescott, and observed the objects in 10x50 binoculars:
I was on my way from Flagstaff to Laughlin Thursday when I saw the light formation reported on the radio the other night. I'm a pilot and was in the U.S. Air Force 4 years. Being in the mountains on highway 40, the night was clear and still. As the formation came towards me I stopped my car and got out with my binocs to check out what this was. As it came towards me, I saw 5 aircraft with their running lights (red and green) and the landing lights (white) on. They were also flying fairly slow and in the delta formation. As they went over me I could see stars going between the aircraft so it could not have been one large ship. The flying was like that of the Blue Angels or the thunderbirds demo team. Also as they went by their jets were not very loud because of the low throttle setting for flying slow but I did hear the jets as they went away towards the south.
Tim Printy has a great deal of information about this incident in his webzine SUNlite2_3.
 
In fact, there is even a video in existence of the "triangle," taken by Terry Proctor. In its 43-second length it clearly shows the motion of the objects with respect to each other. In other words, despite some observers’ impressions, what flew over was not a single solid object, but five unconnected lights flying in formation.

four frames from the Proctor video, showing actual positions of the five objects (lines added). Ironically, this screen cap is from a Discovery Channel (U.S.) program, "UFOs Over Phoenix."
But what aircraft were they? According to a May 1999 Reader’s Digest article by Randy Fitzgerald, "UFOs – A Second Look,"
At 8:30 p.m. the cockpit crew of an American West 757 airliner at 17,000 feet near Lake Pleasant, Ariz., noticed the lights off to their right and just above them.

"There's a UFO!" co-pilot John Middleton said kiddingly to pilot Larry Campbell. They queried the regional air-traffic-control center in Albuquerque, N.M. A controller radioed back that it was a formation of CT-144s flying at 19,000 feet.

Overhearing the exchange, someone claiming to be a pilot in the formation radioed Middleton. "We're Canadian Snowbirds flying Tutors," a man said... [Fitzgerald later added] “We’re headed to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.”
(I knew Fitzgerald when I was living in the Washington, DC area. I did a few articles for him for a new magazine called Second Look, that was supposed to be an objective look at the UFO phenomenon. He put out a few issues, but it was not successful.)

“Snowbirds” is the name of the Canadian Flying Demonstration team, similar to the Blue Angels. But that story does not check out – the Canadian Snowbirds were not in Arizona at that time. So what does that mean? Why would a pilot, apparently flying quite legally in a formation of five aircraft, misidentify his aircraft and his mission? Fitzgerald has gone so far as to suggest in a 2010 two-part Examiner article that the apparently deceptive reference to the Canadian Snowbirds may have been an exercise in “psychological warfare.” He notes that “When the first UFO sighting reports began coming in that night, the formation of lights were seen coming from the direction of Las Vegas along a commercially trafficked air corridor.” He suggests that this might have been some secret exercise involving technology developed at Area 51 near Las Vegas, possibly including “Holographic Deception Technology.”

Since there is now no recording of that cockpit conversation, we cannot be sure of the exact words used. But suppose that Middleton, repeating the conversation to Fitzgerald, misremembered the exact words? Perhaps it went something like this: “We’re Snowbirds, we’re headed to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,” and Middleton then reflected, “Snowbirds, they’re the Canadian Flying Demonstration team.” Because in that case, he would have made a very understandable mistake: he confused two different flying groups that use the same name!

Since the 1970s, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson has operated a program called Operation Snowbird, which brings in Air National Guard pilots from snowy northern states for winter flying practice. It is operated by the Air National Guard’s 162nd Fighter Wing. This video explains the training functions of Operation Snowbird. Another Snowbird-related video shows A-10s zooming about and even dropping flares.



Fitzgerald notes in his Examiner article that “Once beyond the southern suburbs of Phoenix, the formation of lights followed Interstate 10 toward Tucson.” This is strange behavior for an extraterrestrial craft. One man told Fitzgerald, “This was so profoundly my most significant visual experience ever, like the hand of God coming down.” 

There were several more observers along Interstate 10 as the objects came down lower and approached Tucson, who described them as five separate objects, and not one huge one. The time was noted as 8:42 PM. These were the last sightings of the V-shaped lights.

March 13, 1997 was the last night of Operation Snowbird for the year, so obviously any aircraft that had flown off to other destinations, such as Las Vegas, had to return to Tucson. James McGaha reconstructs the story of the V-shaped formation as follows: Five A-10 jets from Operation Snowbird had flown from Tucson to Nellis Air force Base near Las Vegas several days earlier, and were now returning. The A-10 jets were flying VFR (visual flight rules), so there was no need for them to check in with airports along the route. They were following the main air corridor for air traffic traveling that route, the “highway in the sky.” (Why a UFO would follow U.S. air traffic corridors is a mystery.) Because they were flying in formation mode they did not have on their familiar blinking collision lights, but instead their formation lights. In any case, FAA rules concerning aircraft lights and flight altitudes, etc. do not apply to military aircraft. The A-10s flew over the Phoenix area, flew on to Tucson, and landed at Davis-Monthan. 




The Second Incident – a Flare Drop


Flare drop near Phoenix, March 13, 1997

Starting around 10:00 PM that same evening, hundreds if not thousands of people in the Phoenix area witnessed a row of brilliant lights hovering in the sky, or slowly falling. Many photographs and videos were taken, making this perhaps the most widely-witnessed UFO event in history. As explained in the Wikipedia article on the Phoenix Lights,
The U.S. Air Force explained the second event as slow-falling, long-burning LUU-2B/B illumination flares dropped by a flight of four A-10 Warthog aircraft on a training exercise at the Barry Goldwater Range at Luke Air Force Base. According to this explanation, the flares would have been visible in Phoenix and appeared to hover due to rising heat from the burning flares creating a "balloon" effect on their parachutes, which slowed the descent. The lights then appeared to wink out as they fell behind the Sierra Estrella, a mountain range to the southwest of Phoenix.

A Maryland Air National Guard pilot, Lt. Col. Ed Jones, responding to a March 2007 media query, confirmed that he had flown one of the aircraft in the formation that dropped flares on the night in question. The squadron to which he belonged was in fact at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona on a training exercise at the time and flew training sorties to the Barry Goldwater Range on the night in question, according to the Maryland Air National Guard. A history of the Maryland Air National Guard published in 2000 asserted that the squadron, the 104th Fighter Squadron, was responsible for the incident. The first reports that members of the Maryland Air National Guard were responsible for the incident were published in The Arizona Republic newspaper in July 1997.
Even many UFO proponents accept that that the video of the second incident - bright lights in a row - was in fact a flare drop, while maintaining that the first incident is still unexplained. But there are still plenty of people arguing that the sightings after 10 PM are unexplained.  Dr. Lynne D. Kitei, M.D. isn’t having any of this “flare drop” business. Her website ThePhoenixLights.net says it promotes “Evolution to a New Consciousness.” She claims she was watching the Phoenix Lights two years before everyone else, and that her research proves  “we are not alone.” By some complicated analysis she claims to have proven that the objects could not have been flares, although I haven’t run across anyone who understands it. I heard her speak at the 2012 International UFO Congress, and some of her photos of UFOs appeared to me to be lights on the ground. Giving up her practice of medicine to become a full-time UFO promoter, “Dr. Lynne” (as she is sometimes called) has made a documentary film The Phoenix Lights, and has appeared on Coast to Coast AM, the well-known late-night paranormal and conspiracy-fest hosted by George Noory, to tell her tales.
Dr. Lynne with yours truly at the 2013 International UFO Congress

When the U.S. Air Force was queried about both incidents, their (correct) initial response was that they knew nothing about them. Both UFO incidents that night involved aircraft of Operation Snowbird, and the Air National Guard has a completely separate command structure from the Air Force. Neither one knows much about the day-to-day activities of the other. Unfortunately, by the time that all of this was pieced together, all records of routine flight operations had been destroyed. But there is very little room for doubt that the famous “V-shaped formation” of lights was five Air National Guard A-10 aircraft flying into Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, and no doubt at all that the second incident was a flare drop. Perhaps because March 13 was the final day of Operation Snowbird, the Air National Guard pilots rushed to finish up all of their flying and flare-dropping before it ended!

40 comments:

  1. I had previously assumed that the sighting was a large stealth blimp, but certainly a V-formation of military aircraft is much more probable, particularly if the aircraft are unusually quiet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Extraterrestrial Telepathic Message revealed…

    Greetings Earthling:

    Let me introduce myself. I am a wealthy Prince from the planet Naboo in a galaxy far, far away.

    I have been exiled from my home planet and I am looking for someone from your planet to help me transfer my wealth, in gold and diamonds, to an Earth contact I have arranged.

    To do this I need $5,000 Earth dollars (USD) to cover expenses.

    I currently don't have the money since I left my wallet in my other Triangle Spaceship back home.

    If you help me I will reward you in riches beyond your wildest dreams!

    Here's the deal. Transfer $5,000 to this account (#4072) at the Central Bank of Nigeria since my Earth contact lives there.

    After I received the money I will return in my spaceship and deliver your reward. I will drop flares to let you know that I have arrived.

    Looking forward to do business with you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK so you've explained the 5 lights and the flares. But what are the 33 lights shown above? They look in perfect formation, well beyond anything we earthlings could do.

    Oh, and and Mr TS4072: tell your wealthy prince that there is no such thing as "Earth dollars".


    ReplyDelete
  4. As a former Army Aviator, I immediately knew this was a formation flight, and that the second sighting was obviously aerial flares. Even with the first video on the news, it was so clearly the drop of flares, but the true believers would not listen, the desire to make this sighting UFO related was paramount at that time...Helped by the "usual suspects"....

    ReplyDelete
  5. To Robert, saw a video where you stated " The best estimate would be is a night re-fuelling mission". This seems strange & I suppose this explanation is better.
    On formation flying, can anyone enlighten me on Sqdrn numbers.
    You state that it wasnt the Canadian Snowbirds acrobatic team,like Blue Angels, Red Devils & similar which do use 5 planes for display reasons as the leader is the reference point in the sky.
    I am of the belief that most planes, since WW2, when the Luftwaffes "finger four" flights decimated the RAF " 3 in Vic " or 5 in V(Delta) formations, it was adopted as the norm for most airforces. The leader & wingman providing the best attack & defense , so sqdrns are made up of even numbers.(Top Gun the movie even explains it).
    Just a query but if anyone has flown Warthogs I am interested in numbers & flight formations> maybe ground attack planes fly different- curious.

    The video was cool, but they flew in a pair, you could hear the noise of the jet engines over rock songs(ACDC), & the relatively small flares burn-out under 5 seconds.
    In the photo above, even if they were long burning ground illumination flares,they are as big as the street lights in the far distance. Isnt the gunnery range 60 miles away? These flares would be enormous by scale.

    But its the early "formation", which witnesses stated was near silent,very low,& blacked out the stars.
    The image you have of "joining the dots" to create 5 different sources of light, can also work for one large V shaped craft. The light you have shown being at the apex of the V, would work just the same if it was positioned a little further inboard. The trailing edge lights would extend to a point just in front, the different spacings accounted by its relative Yaw, Pitch & Roll. Banking to the right it seems in the sequence shown.
    My last point, but eyewitness statements cant be trusted( which you also emphasize in the video) Is the ex-skeptic turned believer, the trucker Bill Greiner. After stopping his truck near Luke Airforce Base, he witnessed 2 fighter jets ,with full afterburners, rapidly climb to the craft where he states it took off like a "Warp from Star Trek".
    Didnt the Airforce claim no knowledge or flights that night?
    It seems like our friends at the USAF are lying or denying again, & the Air Guard & Mitch Stanley didnt come forward till 3mths later.
    Mmmmm? Ex USAF personnel & a 21 yr old following jets in a telescope as witnesses, or 100s of others & a senior aged truck driver parked next to the Luke Airforce base, & converted to a "believer" after what he saw?
    Flares lasting for 20mins 60miles away?
    Jet engines that cant be heard very close at low altitude?
    An extraterrestial craft wouldnt hover over a city or follow a highway? Locals?

    But the thing I hated about this whole affair, was the Governer ridiculed it at the press meeeting with his aide in the suite, but once he had his pension & new employment secured, came out & said he witnessed it too?(guilt)
    Wasnt he a good witness because he had flown in the USAF or Air Guard?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Snowbirds use up to nine aircraft in their formation flying, not five.

      Immaterial, anyways, as the Snowbirds were not involved in this sighting as Robert has explained.

      Delete
  6. There was another flare drop almost exactly 10 years later, filmed by Fox as it happened
    http://www.spike.com/video-clips/btsgmz/phoenix-lights-part-2
    http://www.ktar.com/?sid=369585&nid=6

    It looked exactly the same as 'the' Phoenix lights, but this time there was no doubt what it was.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, so how about a repeat of the proposed explanation--the V-formation of the Warthogs from the National Guard? I'm interested in the sound measurements....

    ReplyDelete
  8. This episode brings up a point of interest about UFOs. I'm curious about the theory here as regards their inability to remain unseen.

    Presumably, the saucer pilots aren't inclined to announce their presence to the world, yet they constantly put themselves in harm's way. They foolishly tool around in formations of up to 33 brightly lit ships, just begging for a local with a camera to capture them on film.

    I think the aliens have an ace up their sleeves, if they have sleeves. They design their ships as featureless blobs. No matter if they're seen at night or in broad daylight, their pictures convey no useful information due to this ploy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Guys: The A-10 has a very quiet engine, especially when it is at flight idle, as these planes were at the time. They were descending from altitude to land and did not need to open the throttles unless necessary....Unless one has a lot of stick time in military aircraft, one should be willing to listen to the people who do this all the time.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The testimonies of army & airforce pilots on this blog depends if they are for or against. Symington was a USAF Captain.
      What about the commercial pilot that stated it was a huge "football field" sized object that practically hovered down Scotsdale Ave?

      You can hear the A-10s in the video above ACDC?
      If their altitude was so high, then why were they descending over Pheonix if landing at Tuscon?
      Is flying in a formation of 5 regular protocol, & at night?

      Yes Jozzcooper, you do make a point. If they are capable of intergalactic flight, anti-gravity, incredible manouvres, & the ability to disable fighter interceptors weapons & electronics( military pilots from lots of countries reports) then they could easily have "cloaking" or light diffracting camouflage systems to enable this.
      We already have stealth for low radar detection, absorbing paints,low exhaust signitures. What could they have?

      Delete
    2. The formation of lights flew along the standard flight path a group of planes would have flown if flying from Las Vegas to Tuscon. If they were flying at 18,000 feet or greater, they would not have been easy to hear if you were not listening for it. There is also the time delay as sound takes some time to travel compared to the speed of light for the visual.
      As for the witnesses, only about 1/3rd of the original witnesses reported seeing a massive object (see SUNlite 2-3). The remain 2/3rds reported no massive object and just a formation of lights (fixed or moving formation). When star witness Mike Fortson saw the formation move in front of the moon, he reported that the UFO suddenly became transparent and only waves (like the fumes of a gas can) appeared in front of the moon and the moon's color shifted. A good example of jet exhaust passing in front of the moon. Trig Johnston (the pilot Deano mentions) gives a report not at 8PM but much later indicating he did not see this event (See SUNlite 5-3). Bill Grenier (the truck driver) mentions a jet chase but no other witnesses saw this. He reported the jets chasing some lights that flew away and not a V-shaped object. Finally, ex-gov Symmington's story is full of holes. He reported hearing about it on the news (via TV) and then driving out to see the object. The problem with this is nobody was reporting this UFO real time that night. If you want to believe a politician, who has a checkered past of not telling the truth, feel free to do so but, IMO, his appearance to tell his story was just a weak effort to get his name in the news.
      I have gone over these points for the past 17 years regarding this case and people still keep repeating the same weak arguments about how it could not have been a formation of aircraft (IMO, they may have been Canadian Tutors flying in the southern US for training that were unassociated with the snowbird demonstration team and not A-10s). My website on the subject and my comments in SUNlite 2-3, 5-3, and 5-4 should be required reading for those interested in seeing the history of the case and the most likely explanation.

      Delete
  10. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/initial-dna-analysis-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible

    How about we discuss real time controversies?

    I would love to hear the 'scientific' 'objective' rationale on this one

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Mark, any new footage these days is instantly labelled fake or CGI manipulation.

      What about the phenomenon of Alaska having the record breaking highest temperatures in history for the last year ? & how it relates to Hillary Clinton being there recently promoting OIL & Gas resources of the Arctic . How the sea ice is at its lowest?
      And if Jim O can give us EXACT information on how much rockets & space shuttle launches have contributed to the large OZONE hole over the North Pole?
      Surely the "Bay Skeptics" must realise you are in a prolonged drought. Global Warming? Climate change? Jet stream wobbles?
      or Weather Modification? HAARP? Chemtrails? & a deliberate baked Alaska to open resources under ice?

      Delete
  11. ||The Johnson family thinks that the object "seems to be sending a transmission" to them, a "personal communication" from whatever "intelligence" is inside the object. Wow!||

    You said it! That almost makes the Johnson family a house full of "Contactees!" LOL

    Psychologist Susan Clancy writes in Abducted that such false beliefs about the world are a “blend of fantasy-proneness, memory distortion, culturally available scripts, sleep hallucinations, and scientific illiteracy." Yes, I'd say that sums it up. Clancy says that she is speaking as a scientist about what is most likely in the world, and not as a partisan in a debate about something that is not only implausible in the extreme but effectively impossible.

    Yes, "culturally available scripts," populated with "UFO" narrative tropes. Ted Owens was a Contactee who played the one "telepathic communication with flying saucer" trope to the hilt.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Owens_(ufology)

    What are some other early examples of telepathic communication with flying saucers, especially telepathic communication with a craft's ambiguous "intelligence," as the Johnsons reported, and not directly with ET occupants?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > What are some other early examples of telepathic communication

      They are endless, from George King of the Aetherius Society to Barney Hill.

      Delete
    2. Telepathic communication with an ambiguous unseen "intelligence" inhabiting a flying saucer or "UFO" as the Johnsons reported, Terry. Try again.

      Delete
    3. I didn't realise we were arguing. I thought you really wanted to know.

      There are piles of examples of telepathy with unseen aliens. King is prominent. Martin Kottmeyer's book has several other examples of lesser-known people. Plenty of modern-day contactees claim telepathic contact, such as Nancy Lieder. Amazon is littered with self-published ebooks from New Agers promoting alien wisdom delivered telepathically.

      Delete
    4. I can only deduce that you're not comprehending, Terry.

      Here, I'm asking for specific examples of claims of telepathic communication with an ambiguous unseen "intelligence" inhabiting a flying saucer or "UFO" as the Johnsons reported. There has to be a "UFO" present and the claim of telepathic communication with that "UFO" itself--not its crew, the space brothers, aliens or a remote cosmic council on Mars.

      So are there any specific reports of encounters with telepathically communicating "UFOs," possessed and silently "speaking" nuts-and-bolts spacecraft, as if robotic, or an organic Solaris-like haunted and "speaking" nebulous glowing disks or patterns of lights?

      You mention Kottmeyer, my question is exactly like one he might ask: When did flying saucers get rows of lights, top or bottom, spin or not, acquire antennae, etc? So address the my question in exactly the same way, or not. I'm not arguing with you, Terry, I'm simply asking for specific and exact answers to the question.

      Delete
    5. Reports of contact like that would have to be rare in the extreme. Most of the stuff that we hear about filters through the non-skeptical pipeline, and they're loathe to promote "encounters" that compound an implausible scenario with other, equally obtuse features.

      If someone claims to be in "contact" with an actual ship, it's not unreasonable to ask that we observe this exchange. This creates a catch-22: either they claim the alien intelligence only did it one time so we can't see it and have to take their word for it, or they take us out to the contact spot and nothing happens.

      Side note: Is it odd that aliens only show up when skeptics aren't present? They'd be the ones I would target for CE 3 if I wanted to get my message across.

      The only one I can think of that may fit the criteria is Duncan Lunan's radio messages from an alien robot space probe.

      Delete
    6. jozzcooper, I deal with the supposed 'alien space probe message' of Duncan Lunan in my book UFO Sightings (chapter 12). Like most such claims, it doesn't hold up when you look at it more closely. Like the Fish Map. the supposed Epsilon Bootis Star Map isn't really quite right, and it takes some "fudging" to make it look right.

      Delete
    7. Robert, that book is at present on my desk in front of me ;)

      Delete
    8. Why would anyone assume that telepathic communication is being projected by a nuts and bolts UFO? If there is communication between entities, the true details are surely yet unknown

      Dr Steven Greer claims to have a documented history of premeditated contact, summoned by telepathic intention, since the early 90's. And even he only ever "speculates" exactly who or what is responding.

      The only provable result is that there is a response, albeit, often subtle and ambiguous. But a response nonetheless

      Anyone who wants an example can venture to his website to view the catalogue of examples; videos, pictures etc

      And anyone who thinks im wrong should smoke some DMT - wait 25 minutes and then revise their entire lifes collection of understanding and knowledge LOL

      Delete
    9. "Psychologist Susan Clancy writes in Abducted that such false beliefs about the world are a “blend of fantasy-proneness, memory distortion, culturally available scripts, sleep hallucinations, and scientific illiteracy." Yes, I'd say that sums it up. Clancy says that she is speaking as a scientist about what is most likely in the world, and not as a partisan in a debate about something that is not only implausible in the extreme but effectively impossible."

      She nailed it.. If you subscribe to the narrative that none of the evidence presented to the contrary is legitimate - It is a carefully formed analysis grounded in the doctrine that there must be 'real world' alternative to the UFO fairy tale. Under those terms, she couldn't be more right. It is seriously accurate and it makes as good a logical argument as can be deduced from this conjected controversy.

      However, that doctrine is contradicted by the real world fact that the universe is an infinite entity apparently perfectly suited to act as a nursery for life.

      It actually makes less sense to protect the terrestrial doctrine, than it does to simply admit that there could possibly be ET's engaging the human race.

      Im happy for either to be true. And in absence of a definite answer, I remain open to both. Thats science right?

      Delete
    10. Hmmm (drums fingers together) science isn't working so perhaps another tactic.

      Greetings Mark,
      At the risk of sounding heavy-handed, I will say that is not science, insofar as it ignores what science tells us, its 'doctrine', if you will.

      The most important statement to consider is "something that is not only implausible in the extreme but effectively impossible". We know that interstellar travel would take so long that there isn't a point. They can't get here from there, in other words. If we are to discuss things scientifically, that much has to be understood.

      Whether or not the "universe is an infinite entity apparently perfectly suited to act as a nursery for life" has no bearing on it. As Frank Drake said, at best we'd only be able to talk to other intelligences.

      OK, enough of that.
      Let's move to the realm of common sense.
      I'm not even sure there's a consensus among UFO proponents as to what the position is.

      We have the UFOs are spaceships folks,
      the New Agers who say they're angels, etc.,
      contactees,
      abductionists,
      the ancient aliens crowd,
      and the list goes on.

      If they're actual ships, where do they land when the work day is over? Where do they keep their fuel depots? Parts must be a real problem this far out. Food, water, and sanitation are major concerns 50,000 years from home.

      Abduction may have seemed like the next logical step at the time, but come on.
      'Well, it took an incredible number of lifetimes, but we arrived. Our people may be long extinct. It's a lonely feeling. What's our first agenda?'
      'Says here to levitate some of the intelligent lifeforms out of their windows and probe them with this (holds up a sinister instrument).'
      'That's stupid.'
      'Then you look at the directions...'

      Ancient aliens runs into a wall of implausibility, not least of which is that humans supposedly considered them gods, but now they content themselves with simple fly-bys.

      The thing that gets me is remarks like "there could possibly be ET's engaging the human race". They aren't engaging the human race. Some claim to contact 'other intelligences' and a fair number of folks think that they can identify unidentified lights in the sky.

      They aren't engaging me, nor any skeptic. Really, it's only very few humans. Mostly it's nebulous claims that the world's governments are in communication with them, storing them, etc. Why do you think someone like that wouldn't expand the contact?

      Use logic. Why remain open to "effectively impossible" ideas? Why not instead say 'show me'? Ask for real evidence. Ask questions like 'does anyone honestly believe that the governments of the world have all agreed on this cover-up'? That's what it would take. If even one wasn't on board, the jig would be up.

      Delete
    11. || [the "UFO" myth and delusion] is contradicted by the real world fact that the universe is an infinite entity apparently perfectly suited to act as a nursery for life.||

      Projecting a human scheme onto the Galaxy of random cosmic violence and populating it with starfaring ETs isn't a fact. The Galaxy could be filled with innumerable examples of simple to highly evolved biology and there not be one other sentient creature. And even if multiple examples of sentient creatures existed, it may be impossible for any one to overcome the physical barriers to interstellar travel, much less become the advanced starfaring civilizations of science fiction-inspired imaginings and pop-culture delusions. And even then, if there were, it doesn't mean any of these hypothetical ET are visiting Earth. It's all one big non sequitur and a false premise for the nonsense that follows:

      || It actually makes less sense to protect the terrestrial doctrine, than it does to simply admit that there could possibly be ET's engaging the human race.||

      No, repeatedly ignoring the real-world facts of the matter and appealing to ignorance, employing half-baked sophistry, hypotheticals and rhetorical challenges is worthless because it does nothing but expose the speaker as an irrational Believer in a myth, and it will never make "UFO" fantasies any more real.

      || Im happy for either to be true. And in absence of a definite answer, I remain open to both. Thats science right?||

      No, the mindless repetition of muddleheaded wishful-thinking "UFO" subculture false beliefs is not science. There is no veracious evidence that Earth is being visited by ET, so there aren't any real ET "UFOs" haunting Earth's stratosphere.

      Delete
    12. "Science isn't working so perhaps another tactic"

      It's becoming a favourite remark on here, a buzz phrase. The only weight it holds is applied under highly debatable terms, and funnily enough, there are many qualified scientists around the world who support the assertions I put forward on here. So perhaps, it's not all as unscientific as some on here would have themselves and others believe.

      "The most important statement to consider is "something that is not only implausible in the extreme but effectively impossible". We know that interstellar travel would take so long that there isn't a point. They can't get here from there, in other words. If we are to discuss things scientifically, that much has to be understood."

      I completely refute the statement. The problem becomes one of distance in space and time. In my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of modern physicist is, this problem is very much a 20-21st century problem. Faster than light travel does not require one to break the laws of relativity. As im sure we've all heard, bending space and time is a theoretical possibility and not all that farfetched. There are also a host of other frontier ideas relating to faster than light travel. We are in our technological infancy. So let's show some humility and imagination when presuming to rule out ET visitation on that basis. It is a hopelessly desperate and negative position to take. Though, not unlike most assertions of the 'terrestrial hypothesis'.

      Im always reminded of the scientists (who's name escapes me) who in the 60's declared that computers would get no smaller and we had reached the limit to which we could refine our technology. It is not a lack of intellect which lead him to that conclusion, merely a lack of measured imagination. He held some misconceived notion that conservative boundaries of imagination was the most accurate and probable means of predicting the future - almost predict a 'real world future' based on the parameters of the current 'real world'. Im sorry, but that's just not the nature of the world we experience. ET cynics are making the exact same mistakes as this guy. Just way too narrow minded (I dont intend to insult)

      The point im putting forward, essentially, is that we can't simply pretend to know what is reasonable probable millions of years in the future. So Anyone who nullifies the ET hypotheses on the basis of restricted travel is, at the very best, having a massive guess, and in the least, presuming to know what they simply cannot. What becomes ironic is the ignorance which these 'self styled scientists' employ at the heart of their theories - Drake

      "Projecting a human scheme onto the Galaxy of random cosmic violence and populating it with starfaring ETs isn't a fact."

      No, it's not a fact. But lets not presume humans are the lone sentient beings of the universe, because that is probably the most ridiculous of all ideas.
      I do understand and often support the anthropic principal, though, I believe science has shown us enough, to safely say, we are almost definitely not alone in the universe

      "much less become the advanced starfaring civilizations of science fiction-inspired imaginings and pop-culture delusions."

      Ah huh... Are we now saying the human race won't, at some point in the not too distant future, at least attempt this? How can we pretend the idea of a starfaring civilization is completely out of the picture? I suppose holding this view makes it easier to dismiss the ET narrative, doesn't it?

      Instead of attempting to predict the future or things we cannot know, let's just go with an open minded view of outcomes and likelihoods based on what we know, current science

      Delete
    13. Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
      "It's becoming a favourite remark on here, a buzz phrase. The only weight it holds is applied under highly debatable terms, and funnily enough, there are many qualified scientists around the world who support the assertions I put forward on here. So perhaps, it's not all as unscientific as some on here would have themselves and others believe."

      Please name some of these scientists and show us that their support for you assertions are based on scientific arguments and not on personal and subjective beliefs.


      Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
      "The problem becomes one of distance in space and time. In my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of modern physicist is, this problem is very much a 20-21st century problem."

      Please name a few of these modern physicists. Maybe you could summarize for us with some detail the scientific arguments they use to support their opinion.


      Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
      "Faster than light travel does not require one to break the laws of relativity. As im sure we've all heard, bending space and time is a theoretical possibility and not all that farfetched."

      Except that all speculations about it require very, very large quantities of energy or 'exotic matter', and the bending cannot propagate faster than light anyway.


      Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
      "There are also a host of other frontier ideas relating to faster than light travel. We are in our technological infancy. So let's show some humility and imagination when presuming to rule out ET visitation on that basis. It is a hopelessly desperate and negative position to take. Though, not unlike most assertions of the 'terrestrial hypothesis'."

      ET visitation is soundly ruled out because there is no evidence for it, and the distances involved make interstellar travel very difficult and impractical.

      Using your standards, we cannot rule out Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      Delete
    14. Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
      "[...]

      The point im putting forward, essentially, is that we can't simply pretend to know what is reasonable probable millions of years in the future. So Anyone who nullifies the ET hypotheses on the basis of restricted travel is, at the very best, having a massive guess, and in the least, presuming to know what they simply cannot. What becomes ironic is the ignorance which these 'self styled scientists' employ at the heart of their theories"


      How do you know that it cannot be Santa Claus or the Flying SPaghetti Monster?


      Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
      "But lets not presume humans are the lone sentient beings of the universe, because that is probably the most ridiculous of all ideas.
      I do understand and often support the anthropic principal, though, I believe science has shown us enough, to safely say, we are almost definitely not alone in the universe"


      No, the only way to show that we are definitely not the only sentient beings in the Universe, is actually finding other sentient beings. Speculating about the possibility is not evidence.



      Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
      "Are we now saying the human race won't, at some point in the not too distant future, at least attempt this? How can we pretend the idea of a starfaring civilization is completely out of the picture? I suppose holding this view makes it easier to dismiss the ET narrative, doesn't it?"

      Ignoring the reality of the difficulties of interstellar travel makes it easier to 'be open' to the possibility of ET visitation. But that does not make the difficulties go away.


      Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
      "nstead of attempting to predict the future or things we cannot know, let's just go with an open minded view of outcomes and likelihoods based on what we know, current science"

      And what we know makes it very unlikely that UFO-related phenomena are caused by sentient beings from other parts of the Universe. No amount of 'open-mindedness' and wishful thinking will magically turn into actual, physical evidence

      Delete
    15. Papageno

      It isn't a mystery. Michio Kaku, Hal Puthof etc and etc and etc

      There a heap of well known qualified specialist who entertain these ideas with realistic consideration. Not sure why you requested a list?

      The fact you believe there is no evidence tells me you are at least mildly retarded

      In response to the rest of your nonsensical flappering, is say

      http://m.youtube.com/user/csetiweb/videos?sort=dd&shelf_index=0&view=0&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2Fcsetiweb%2Fvideos%3Fshelf_index%3D0%26view%3D0%26sort%3Ddd

      Cheers

      Delete
    16. Good to hear from you, Mark.

      Your remarks are a good example of my point, that we can't agree on what science has told us- hence my appeal to logic.

      If you're of the mind that UFOs are, or could be, alien craft, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on those questions I posed earlier.

      Besides everyday concerns like food, fuel, and a place to park, how about the blindingly obvious one, namely, how did they know we were out here? Really think about that.

      Furthermore, what's the prevailing theory on why they'd be visiting? Observation? Then it may not be a good idea to fly in large, brightly lit formations. Hostile? We'd be well aware if that were the case. Peaceful ambassadors perhaps. They might want to land at the U.N. and wave a tentacle or something. Over sixty years of sightings and we're still at square one. What's the logical answer here?

      No one nullifies interstellar travel based on travel limitations. Hard-Science science fiction and speculative fiction authors have been coming up with things like generational spaceships for decades. Distance is simply one part of the equation. Taken as a whole, with all of the component parts put through the filter of common sense, skeptics find no merit in the idea of UFOs being alien craft. People can believe what they want, but I predict that we'll know no more than we do now in another sixty years.

      The anecdote about the computer guy is interesting, and fairly telling. He was wrong and must have known it rather quickly. That's where the comparison runs into trouble. If we still used those same computers until some breakthrough in 2013, it might make sense to point out that most everyone in the industry was wrong all that time. Instead, computer technology races ahead towards its logical limit (that of human perception). In a similar vein, another poster mentions that we went from powered flight to landing on the Moon in 65 years. 43 years later, and computers are immensely more powerful and are carried around in pockets, while the space program seems to be hitting a wall. What ever happened to the flying cars they said we'd have in the 21st century?

      Is it realistic to think aliens are here without anything definite to show for it? Or sea serpents or yeti or dragons? Perhaps no more realistic than to try to change the mind of one who believes in them.

      Delete
    17. Jozzcooper, thanks for your engaging and considered response

      To speculate for the benefit of explanation and understanding, the ET hypothesis, as an holistic theory, apparently provides a united answer for many of the ambiguous anomalies found throughout science, history and particularly modern politics. The ET Hypothesis makes for an intriguingly fitting story. That being said, skeptics take the position that a fabricated reality can be molded and manipulated to fill the gaps of any unfulfilled mystery.

      I don't 'believe' that ET's are engaging the human race, and I am philosophically comfortable with the idea that we're completely alone in this vast and eternally mysterious universe - Im an open book - However, as my fundamental belief is that we're likely not alone, I consider the ET hypothesis a very real possibility. Here's why

      Working from the established probability that intelligent sentient others exist somewhere in the universe, we now take another step forward

      "Besides everyday concerns like food, fuel, and a place to park, how about the blindingly obvious one, namely, how did they know we were out here? Really think about that"

      To be frank, these questions proceed the requirement of necessity. Allow me to speculate - if they're sophisticated enough to overcome the magnitude of problems married to interstellar, or perhaps, intergalactic travel, certainly we can rest assured they have conquered problems as basic as 'where to take a dump'.
      That being said, the question of how they knew we were here is a deep and thought provoking one. However, I'd suggest that such a problem is also easily defeated. The James Web Space telescope (scheduled for launch 2018) will be able to peer through the atmospheric components of exo planets searching for signs of life at any scale. Basically, if our infant tech has provided us with a means to detect life from remote distances, the question of how ET's could know of our presence quickly becomes somewhat of a non-issue.

      "Furthermore, what's the prevailing theory on why they'd be visiting? Observation? Then it may not be a good idea to fly in large, brightly lit formations. Hostile? We'd be well aware if that were the case. Peaceful ambassadors perhaps. They might want to land at the U.N. and wave a tentacle or something. Over sixty years of sightings and we're still at square one. What's the logical answer here?"

      Think about it. Explore a fictitious extrapolation of reality. I find it a totally immature and anthropogenic fallacy to ask why ET's do not land on the White house lawn.
      The prevailing theory is they're thoughtfully and sensitively making their presence known slowly, so as to allow us to confront the truth when we're prepared to. Clearly some people are not ready. So they seem to know what they're doing.
      Perhaps, we are a classified as a delicate infant civilization by the ET's, and it is understood that we must develope and grow within the confines of our sovereign individuality. Not unlike a parent allowing a teen to confront and overcome problems for themselves for their own benefit, and for the conservation of any unique characteristics? Perhaps, they appreciate to a very wise extent, how important it is to allow a large, delicate and complex social system, as is found on earth, to slowly find ET rather than forcing such a paradigm shifting reality upon it. Who knows?

      If the ET hypothesis is correct, they have on many occasions intervened for our own benefit. So they're apparently supervising us to some extent. Perhaps, deliberately showing themselves here and there, waiting for our governments to openly reveal their presence?

      I appreciate if people choose to refute the evidence available. But to refute the ET narrative with an underwhelming and frankly unimaginable philosophical view point, I find it surprising, particularly coming from a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself, Jozzcooper



      Delete
    18. So close, so very close. You had your finger on it even, when you said holistic. That's exactly what i was driving at- to look not at one facet and explain it away, then another and another, but to look at the whole view.

      Here's an example.
      Say you had an employee who showed up for work 4 hours late.
      Why didn't you call?
      -my phone died.
      What happened?
      -I ran out of gas
      It took you that long?
      -no, then i had a flat tire.
      That's still a long time
      -well, then my car went into a ditch
      Is that all?
      -no, I had to help a stranded motorist.
      And so on and so on. Any one explanation is plausible. There comes a point when the explanations, taken as a whole, strain one's credulity.

      The same can be said for believing in UFOs as alien craft. If you piecemeal it, you can psyche yourself out to buy into it, but say to yourself 'Ok, this is unlikely and this and this. That much coincidence won't work.'

      Other worlds are too far away, and travel too slow
      -they're really advanced
      They still have to follow physical laws
      -they're really advanced
      It would take immense energy, certainly more than the some little blob of light can store
      -umm
      What of all the "great cases" that have been satisfactorily explained?
      -There are new ones all the time
      Where do they go to rest and refuel?
      -ummm
      Why do these advanced craft crash?
      -they're being shot down with lasers
      Why?
      -no idea
      Why are they brightly lit if they don't want to show themselves?
      -'cuz they're UFOs
      What about all the abductions?
      -not sure
      How much study do people this advanced need of the human reproductive system?
      -a lot, apparently
      But the government knows about them?
      -yes
      All of the governments?
      -yes, but they let the US call the shots, even the ones that hate the US passionately
      So they are slowly introducing themselves?
      -yes, only to a select few million people in military, government, and civilian life worldwide
      To develop and grow?
      -yes, and to prove their good intentions, they shoot down planes from time to time, and abduct people
      They only want people to know about them when ready?
      -yes
      Can you give us an example of who's ready?
      -chiefly paranoid conspiracy theorists and fantasy-prone individuals who attend things like UFO congresses.
      Things have gotten better with their help, though?
      -absolutely. Well, ok, not at all- far worse really. I could go on for days about all the missteps humans have made despite being under the aegis of the aliens.

      This was tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but you get the idea. How much coincidence is too much? How much should UFO believers have to explain away before they start to question the whole thing? perhaps we can flip that one statement around- we need to allow the UFO believers to confront the truth when they're ready. They can do it. So can you.

      Delete
    19. You've created the coincidence, Jozzcooper. There is no coincidence. There doesn't have to be a 21st century answer for every unknownable question you propose. Don't concern yourself with anthropomorphic issues of how they got here or 'how much study into the anatomy they would have to have done'. This type of thinking is comparable to a medieval priest trying to figure out how the Internet works - or even more thought provoking, just what the fk the Internet is? How it could possibly be a real thing? Or in what realm it must exist in, in being non physical or apparently invisible, even mystical.

      Seriously mate, show some humility

      You don't realize it yet, though, there are major assumptions at the heart of what you hold as fact, status quo or realistic. It is for this reason you have trouble rationalizing an ET reality.

      There are no coincidences. Just hundreds of qualified people in the know, in respected positions of democratically appointed power who have gone on the record to say "I can say it's a fact that we're being engaged by ET's and it is being covered up" "we've got countless cases of corroborated ground and air radar with ground and air witnesses etc etc etc etc"

      The evidence exists so blatantly. However, it must first defeat the human condition before it can be openly surveyed by science. Jozzcooper, your intellectual perspective is a perpetuation of the road block, the human condition of believe based perception - we see only what we must and nothing more.

      Please consider the statements below.

      Photographs CAN be faked, therefore all inconvenient Photographs MUST be faked

      Eyewitnesses CAN be mistaken, therefore all inconvenient eyewitnesses MUST be mistaken

      Delete
    20. "This type of thinking is comparable to a medieval priest trying to figure out how the Internet works - or even more thought provoking, just what the fk the Internet is? "
      Actually, no it's not. In fact, it's an awful analogy. You are claiming that people know, they are going on record, and that it's being investigated scientifically- just not by everyone yet. You say there's evidence from "countless cases". None of these apply to the Internet in Medieval times.

      mark, you're supplying the ammunition. I can only reply in terms I think you'll make sense of.
      "Not unlike a parent allowing a teen to confront and overcome problems for themselves for their own benefit, and for the conservation of any unique characteristics? "
      That's anthropomorphism. Furthermore, how does that reconcile with abductions, people being humiliated and scarred and living with nightmares? Is that how a parent allows a teen to overcome its problems?

      Delete
  12. I've now become skeptical about Scott Wolter's show, America Unearthed, after reading this article: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/12/review-of-america-unearthed-s02e05-grand-canyon-treasure.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Sheaffer,

      Any chance we could hold a discussion on this little development?

      http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/initial-dna-analysis-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible

      I appreciate that it doesn't appease the standard of vulnerability you seem to prefer within the stories chosen for discussion. Though it certainly qualifies as controversial, and we are fortunately not having to rely on hear say. Just the science of genetics..

      I am extremely interested in watching the angle taken by the cult figures of the 'terrestrial religion'

      Delete
    2. Mark, it's a bit off-topic considering what we are discussing here. Sharon Hill has already dealt with this claim in Doubtful News:
      http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/

      Delete
  13. Is this the same Sharon that you disagreed with about "Earthquake Lights"?
    A phenomenon that will probably be pushed more into the limelight as more "manmade" earthquakes appear globally, & the irridescent clouds that form from the electromagnetic waves passing through them are denied as the real cause.
    Again our friends at the USAF are to be believed "Owning the Weather by 2020" or DoD Cohen's statement about generating earthquakes. Project Cloverleaf or the "Welsbach Patent" describing adding micron sized Al particules to jet fuel. STADIS 450 is MANDATORY in jet fuel & contains Barium salts!
    Sorry Zoam, but this is all documented evidence of Chemtrails & the reason is to maximize HAARP waves> earthquakes,hurricanes & weather modification.
    So if we cant trust Sharon on earthquake lights, why should we trust her on the Paracas skulls?
    Elongating the skull by deforming should not increase the brain capacity by 25%>period! Genetics will eventually prove DNA manipulation.
    I was in fits of laughter watching the film "Expelled", when evolution diehard ,Richard Dawkings(The God Delusion) could only produce "Directed Panspermia" as the start of "Life" on this planet.
    So Intelligent Design Deniers(Micheal Shermer included) believe in evolution,as long as it was brought here by Aliens?

    I suggest that maybe the Aliens & UFOs have never left the EARTH!
    There is multiple videos of UFOs plunging into that volcano in Mexico.
    Peurto Rico has long been rumoured to have an underwater UFO base.
    We know more about our solar system than what we have explored at the deepest depths of our oceans.
    But this aside, intergalactic travel might be as simple as catching a bus in the future. It only took 65yrs from the first powered flight by the Wright Bros till landing on the moon with the Apollo missions. A fact that seems to be too easily forgotten by a lot of people that visit this site.....
    Were we helped? Von Braun said we were.

    As for Drake> dont get me started!
    This is the man that gave us the Drake Equation, that the possibility of life in our galaxy alone is a definite.
    The same man when questioned about the Arecibo reply in front of the Chibolton radar telescope tried to laugh it off with ridicule.
    It is such a shame that the worlds scientists are under the yoke of money, & hidden agendas & compliance with the status quo!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark McFarlane February 12, 2014 at 5:30 PM:
    "Papageno

    It isn't a mystery. Michio Kaku, Hal Puthof etc and etc and etc"


    Then it should not be too hard for you to summarize the scientific arguments that they put forward and that you find so compelling.



    "There a heap of well known qualified specialist who entertain these ideas with realistic consideration. Not sure why you requested a list?"

    Because I want to know what you are talking about.


    "The fact you believe there is no evidence tells me you are at least mildly retarded"

    Then it should not be too hard for you to actually present the evidence, instead of wasting space and time with name-calling.


    "In response to the rest of your nonsensical flappering, is say"

    Please be specific: what is nonsense and why.
    If you dismiss so quickly what I write, it should not be too hard for you to present a compelling scientific argument, that does not boil down to wishful thinking and unsupported speculation.

    "
    http://m.youtube.com/user/csetiweb/videos?sort=dd&shelf_index=0&view=0&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2Fcsetiweb%2Fvideos%3Fshelf_index%3D0%26view%3D0%26sort%3Ddd

    Cheers"


    Since when is science done by youtube videos?
    Would you be willing to have surgery done by a guy who 'learned' it from youtube?

    ReplyDelete

Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.