About those "Orbiting Flashes" of Dr. Villarroel

 Viewers of NBC News on Sept. 22 were treated to some spectacular claims about artificial objects that might have been in orbit around the earth before Sputnik. Dr. Beatriz Villarroel repeated her now-viral claims about 'vanishing stars' - stars that appear on a red-sensitive photographic plate, but not in the blue-sensitive one. As if this were something remarkable.

Dr. Villarroel provided images to NBC News from the Palomar Sky Survey, showing stars on a Red Plate, and the same stars on a Blue Plate. Some of the stars are missing on the blue plate! Wonder of wonders!!
 

Dr. V. has circled some 'missing stars' between the Red and Blue plates, which she assumes to be mysterious objects orbiting the earth before Sputnik. Does she expect the objects on the two plates to otherwise be the same? If so, why did astronomers even bother to photograph star images in two different colors? 

Frankly, anybody making this claim does not understand why two different color plates are used in the Sky Survey.  

It is not to add color or sparkle to the effort. Rather, it is to measure a star's relative brightness in two different colors, which gives us its color index, and hence its temperature and spectral class. Indeed the color of a star is determined by its relative brightness on each plate. That is why two different colors are used.  Astronomers want to determine the "Color Temperature" of a individual star, which reveals a lot about the star's makeup. The astronomer measures the apparent brightness of a star in red and blue light. Then the calculation of B-V (blue minus red) brightness tells us what spectral class this star belongs to. The image below illustrates why astronomers took images of star fields using two different color-sensitive plates. 

Stars have colors,which in turn tells astronomers its temperature (from Slooh).

A star that is very red (Type M) will shine brightly on the red-sensitive plate, but may not show up at all on the blue plate, while the very blue stars (Types O, B, and A) might not be seen in the red. That's how the sky survey works.

The 18 1/2 inch Alvan Clark refractor at Dearborn Observatory, from 1860. 

Way back when I took astronomy classes at Northwestern University, we learned the fine art of using glass plates for astrophotography, using this venerable 19th Century gem, the 18 1/2 inch Alvan Clark refractor at Dearborn Observatory (and yes, this class was taught by J. Allen Hynek). Nobody uses glass plates any longer, today it's all electronic imaging (which of course did not exist almost 60 years ago). Below is an image of the famous Hercules Cluster (M13) I took on a glass plate circa 1969, using the Alvan Clark refractor. What look like scratches on the plate are in fact alien space probes.

 

  So, enough of this nonsense about 'missing stars!!' 

 

 

Has Dr. Avi Loeb been Bluffing all this Time?

 Dr. Avi Loeb is an astrophysicist at Harvard University. Nobody is questioning his credentials as an astrophysicist, but his penchant for jumping to wild conclusions about UFOs (UAPs) has made him something of a joke among serious astronomers. In 2025 the interstellar object 3I-ATLAS entered our solar system from the depths of interstellar space. Dr. Loeb started saying that it might be an interstellar spacecraft, perhaps sent to check up on earth? He co-authored a paper which said,

As largely a pedagogical exercise, in this paper we present additional analysis into the astrodynamics of 3I/ATLAS, and hypothesize that this object could be technological, and possibly hostile as would be expected from the ’Dark Forest’ resolution to the ’Fermi Paradox’.We show that 3I/ATLAS approaches surprisingly close to Venus, Mars and Jupiter, with a probability of ? 0.005%

Of course, when 3I/ATLAS reached its closest approach to the sun, it swung around and continued on its hyperbolic path out of our solar system, never to be seen again. Loeb had said basically the same thing earlier about the first interstellar object, 1I/Oumuamua, possibly being a spacecraft.. . 

 

In July Dr. Loeb wrote, “Why I Agreed to Lead the UAP Science Advisory Council for the U.S. Government”. In it he writes,

A month and a half ago, I was visited by a representative from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). He raised a simple question: “Would you be willing to establish and lead a new advisory council for the U.S. Government on the science of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). I responded: “You had me at `hello.’

In support of President Trump’s directive on UAP transparency, I was tasked by ODNI, the White House, the Pentagon’s All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), the FBI and the Intelligence Community, to establish and lead the new UAP Science Advisory Council. The council reports to the UAP Governing Board which includes representatives from the above-mentioned organizations. Its goal is to advise the U.S. government on how to resolve the nature of UAP. 

 Small problem: there is no actual evidence, other than Loeb's word, that this really is a 'Government UAP Council.' I realized that the provenance of this Council seemed a bit woozy, but, well, sometimes academics are like that. Many of us thought that Loeb was a poor choice to head up the Council, given his penchant for jumping to absurd conclusions. But politics is like that sometimes, we thought.

To my knowledge the first person to raise the question in a serious manner was Alex Zorin. On Aug. 14 he wrote on X, 

??The FBI, in response to my FOIA request, says they have "no record" of a so-called "UAP Science Advisory Council."
@ProfAviLoeb  previously claimed in a blog post and reporting by @BrandiVincent_of DeefenseScoop  that he was tasked by the FBI (among others) to organize such a body. At the time, I noted there was no record of a FARC charter as legally required, and no official government announcement. And I suggested Loeb misunderstood a casual conversation to be something it was not,...
I'm still waiting on replies from the other agencies Loeb claims "established" the board — a board no one seems to have any record of existing.

I reached out to one of the members of the Council who I knew, and asked him the question about Government sponsorship. He was at first dismissive of the question as a crazy conspiracy theory. He then explained that they have a regular Zoom meeting with a friend of Avi, who works for the government. I told him, that sounds to me like the "Trust me, bro" arguments of so-called "UFO whistleblowers." He said he would ask Avi about this. I have not heard back from him.

On one of Dr. Loeb’s public postings on X about his Government Council to study UAPs, I asked the question: “Dr. Loeb, do you have any documentary proof that your Council is, in fact, an official government panel?” There was no reply.

I brought this to the attention of New York Post reporter Steven Greenstreet, who is like a bulldog when he gets his teeth into a story. Greenstreet looked into the question of whether Dr. Loeb’s Council was, in fact, an official government organization. He later wrote on X,

I reached out to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to ask about Harvard Professor Avi Loeb's UFO council and its relationship with the government. 

He asked them, “Is the UAP Science Advisory Council an official government group? “. Their reply was, “No, the UAP Science Advisory Council is an informal group of experts who have provided their views to ODNI officials.” Ouch!  

So there you have it. Documentary evidence that Loeb's "Government UAP Science Advisory Council" is not a government agency, with only anecdotal evidence that it is. Why are you trying to fool us, Avi? Did you think that you could get away with it forever, that no skeptic would ever start digging? Why don't you go back to your telescope, maybe Spaceship 4I/LOEB will be here soon?

 

Steve Pierce confesses theTravis Walton UFO Abduction Hoax

The Travis Walton "UFO abduction" back in 1975 is one of the best-known and most widely believed of all UFO cases. It was depicted in the movie Fire In The Sky. Serious researchers have known for a while that the case was a hoax. Now Steve Pierce, one of the woodcutters in the truck with Travis, not only admits the hoax, but explains how it was done.

In August of 2026, researcher Ryan Gordon traveled to the 'abduction site' with Pierce to try to untangle the confusion. Gordon published a YouTube video to document their discussions about the case. He writes,

On November 5, 1975, deep in the chilling timber of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests just outside of Heber, Arizona, a logging crew experienced an event that would cement itself in UFO history forever. What started as a routine day in the woods ended with 22-year-old Travis Walton vanishing without a trace for five agonizing days and allegedly taken aboard an extraterrestrial spacecraft. But as the years have passed, cracks in the world's most famous abduction story have begun to show. What really happened in the forest that night?

In this exclusive and gripping deep-dive interview, producer Ryan Gordon sits down with original logging crew member and eyewitness Steve Pierce to unravel decades of mystery, rumor, and shocking revelations.

The video begins with Pierce and Gordon at Turkey Springs in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. This is where the woodcutters were working on their forest service contract. It is also where Travis Walton claims he was "abducted," leading a group of researchers there, amid absurd claims about 'radioactive trees' and the like. 

But a little reflection tells us this cannot be true. The woodcutters normally returned home using Black Canyon Road, a primitive but direct route through the forest, starting before it gets dark. However, on Abduction Day, Mike Rogers, the crew chief and driver of the truck, had the crew work until it was dark. He then chose to return via the Rim Road, a forest road they had not taken before. At the intersection of another road, they reportedly saw a UFO. Rogers stopped the truck, and Travis ran out to see the UFO. When Travis was reportedly struck by a beam of light from the UFO, Rogers hit the gas and sped away from the site, reaching a speed of 60 MPH on Rim Road, until they decided to stop and go back to try to find poor Travis, which of course they could not.

The Gentry Tower as seen from the road in daylight. Travis Walton's "UFO."

At the site of the Gentry Tower, Pierce says that he is "100% certain" that this was Travis Walton's UFO. A brief description of the case as we now know it:

• The hoax was planned by Travis Walton and Mike Rogers. The other woodcutters (including Steve Pierce) knew nothing of it at the time.
• There was a third hoaxer working in the Gentry Tower. He shone a searchlight on Travis, to make it look like he was being "zapped".

More recently, Travis has been claiming that the beam from the UFO 'killed' him. Fortunately, the aliens took him aboard their craft, and restored him to life. 

Mike Rogers died this past February. According to his daughter, he made a deathbed confession of  the Travis Walton hoax. Rogers had "confessed" this in 2021 in a phone call with Ryan Gordon, but then retracted his confession soon afterward. Rogers also reportedly "confessed" to his daughter to having hoaxed the famous Phoenix Lights using balloons or something, which is preposterous. Those "lights" traveled 400 miles in less than an hour, so they were obviously aircraft. Frankly, this detracts from the credibility of Rogers' other confession, although I still don't doubt it..

Steve Pierce at the Gentry Tower.

 

Forest Service CL-100 lookout tower (same model as Gentry Tower in Apache-Sitgreaves Natl. Forest)

The National Enquirer was offering $1 million for "proof that UFOs come from outer space." The Walton/Rogers crew was hoping to win that prize, but fell short. However, they received instead $2,500 each for '1975's most extraordinary encounter.' 

 

"Transients" in Palomar Sky Survey - Probably from Aliens!

 Of late the UFO community has gone into a frenzy over some papers written by astronomer Beatriz Villarroel (with co-author Steven Bruehl, also Gary Nolan, and others), claiming to have found "transients" on Palomar Sky Survey plates taken (mostly) between 1949 and 1957. These are being interpreted as something mysterious, probably aliens putting things in geosynchronous orbit, objects that have since disappeared.

A good summary of Dr. Villarroel's methods is in this paper by Isabela Melamed, Not Seeing the Star Cloud for the Stars.   She writes,

Within a 10×10 arcminute section — about the size of a dime held at arm’s length — they spotted nine stars, only to see them disappear 30 minutes later in the subsequent blue-sensitive plate.

This was bizarre — stars don’t vanish that fast. No known phenomenon explains it. Villarroel proposed a bold hypothesis: could the nine transients be reflections from non-terrestrial artifacts in geosynchronous orbit, perhaps extraterrestrial?

Caption from Dr. Villarroel's paper: "Four exposures of the 3 ×3 arcmin region of sky centered on the triple transient identified in July 1952. Upper left: The POSS I red image on July 19, 1952 at 8:52 (UT) containing the triple transient just above center. Upper right: A 10 m exposure POSS I blue image of the same region taken immediately afterward with no evidence of the triple transient. Lower left and right: POSS I red (left) and blue (right) images taken two months later (September 14, 1952) showing the transient still gone.  Adapted from Solano et al. (2024)."

Frankly, anyone using that argument for the existence of anomalies obviously does not understand why the Palomar Sky Survey (and many others) imaged in red and blue. Astronomers want to determine the "Color Temperature" of individual stars, which reveals a lot about the star's makeup. The astronomer measures the apparent brightness of a star in red and blue light. Then the calculation of B-V (blue minus red) brightness tells us what category this star belongs to.

From Slooh

It is not surprising at all that some stars seen on the red-sensitive plate do not appear on the blue-sensitive plate, and vice-versa. Very red stars (type M) emit very little light in the blue part of the spectrum, and probably would not be seen on the blue-sensitive plate. The same would be true of stars Type O or B, which would probably be faint or invisible on the red-sensitive plate.

I am wondering if Dr. Villarroel or her colleagues performed the obvious, reverse search. That is, examine the blue-sensitive plate for "transients" that do not appear on the red.

When I was taking astronomy classes at Northwestern about a hundred years ago, we learned the following phrase to help us remember the different spectral types of stars:

O, Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me.

You can't say that any more!
 

 

Finding Skeptic Con-Man in the Epstein Files, Part 2.

 

(Continued from Part 1)

Finding Skeptic Con-Man in the Epstein Files, Part 2.

Seckel asks Epstein for a "secured credit" loan of $8 million (!). Epstein seems to be willing to offer 6 million.

To: Al seckel
From: Jeevacation@gmail.com
Sent: Tue 12/7/2010 6:52:54 PM
Subject: Re: Question
What collateral is the issue
Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhonc

On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Al seckel vrotc:
Can we make it 8 million in secured credit? Just easier. What would be
your loan rate?

From: Jeevacation  To: Al seckel a Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 10:38:26 AM Subject: Re: Question 6 million Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone 

On Dcc 7, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Al seckel wrote: Serious question for an opportunity: For a 3.5 mil loan for one year... How much actual and real secured collateral would you need (amount of value)? What would be your loan rate? Is this possible? This is actually a real question. Appreciatively, Al

What is the context of this unusual negotiation?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          From: Jeffrey Epstein <"jeevacation@gmail.com>

To: Al seckel < >
Sent: Tue, June 15, 2010 8:37:08 PM
Subject: Re: sunday guests
always
On The, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Al seckel <
Sean Carroll, Caltech physicist
http://en.wikipedia.orgiwiki/Sean M. Carroll
http://mposterousuniverse.com/self.html
> wrote:
Joe Kirchvink, Caltech geology professor, friend since 1982. fun, smart, wacky.
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Ejkirschvink/
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Ejkirschvink/PEbio I .htm 

On Apr 17, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Al seckel wrote:
Jeff,
Good to talk to you this morning on this subject, as it is one I am entirely comfortable
with. ;-)
The list I sent you yesterday has the criteria of thinkers, out of the box. These are amongst
the very brightest people that I know, where I enjoy listening to them, and they
say insightful things along with a deep understanding of the subject matter.
Intellectual judgment along with intellectual ability. The two don't always go
hand-in-hand. This is also a list of people who have a certain type of intelligence,
but may not necessarily have social intelligence, i.e, they are a bit awkward.
Jay is incredibly skilled socially compared to some of the people on this list. Just fyi. I
personally am not bothered by social awkwardness, but this is your thing, and
you would like a good mix, and that is understandable. Criteria will just be
different then.
You brought up Jay. This is a good example. Jay does listen, and then tends to offer up his
own views. I very much enjoy interacting with Jay, and he is a close friend, and
although I may not always agree with him, he does always offer up ideas that are
interesting and worth thinking about. That's why I put him on the list. He has a
certain way he maps the world and he is also very well read and informed. This is
not an argument about Jay, just why I put him on the list. I would also put
Nathan in the same category as Jay. Doesn't listen much, pontificates, don't
always agree with what he says, but he tends to say things that are provocative
and interesting. He has an interesting way of mapping the world too, and is well
read and informed. I enjoy bantering with both of them, and count them as real
friends that I have known and hung out with for many years.
Some of the names listed are titans of intellectual ego. Steven Wolfram being amongst the
worst of them. Others are very shy and socially and fashion awkward, but are
amongst the very brightest and informed that I know, and will run intellectual
circles around some of the names on this list.
I very much like the idea of your asking people on this list to contribute names of the ten
"brightest" people that they know. This list would provide an excellent set of
references.
Please note, that although I have a diversity of thinkers, I have distinctly avoided people
who map the world in a magical way, and would encourage us to avoid "magical
thinkers.

From: Jeevacation <jeevacationafromailicom>
To: Al seckel
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 5:16:16 AM
Subject: Re: Re:
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Al secke otc:
Anyone you don't know on an immediate list, ask me or google
them. All are good friends of mine for years, but these very high end
circles travel together, so you should be very familiar with almost all
of them. And, a few that you don't know, are off the charts, and in
some respects smarter than the ones that are familiar... ;-) They just
didn't seek the limelight. I have marked these people with an
asterisk. Not everyone on this list is a scientist.
There is no order to this list (this is a cross-section off the top of my head). I can
think of more names if I put my mind to it, but lets start here:
I am happy to discuss anyone here
Nathan Mhyrvoid  *Catherine Mohr  *Jay Walker
Christof Koch  *Terry Sejnowski  Danny Hillis
*Bran Ferren  Vilamur Ramachandran  Lisa Randall
Frances Arnold  Jesse Dylan  Larry Page Elon Musk
Stephen Wolfram  Steve Juvertson  *Pablo Ho
Jaron Lanier  Craig Venter  paul Kirkaas  Yossi Vardi
*Eric Mjolsness  *Mike Douglas  Dean Kamen
*Shelly Glashow  *Derrick Ashong  James Cameron
*Ronald Crowley  *Jeffrey Lehman  Christine Maxwell
*Brock Pierce  *Rich Roberts  *Lee Stein  *Gerry Sussman
*John Conway  Dan Dubno (just because he is very interesting)

 From: Jeffrey Epstein < jeevacation@gmail.com>To: Al seckel

Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:56:34 PM
Subject: Re:
of course
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Al seckel wrote:
Ah, you have actually asked my specialty. Seriously. Ok, different
disciplines and business too?
From: Jeffrey it m>
To: Al seckel
Sent: Thu y„ : : PM
Subject
could you give me a list of who you think would enjoy a get together in florida„
smart , out of the box types

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Wow, look at this...Epstein is suing two individuals - SCOTT ROTHSTEIN and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and goes to great lengths to prevent Al Seckel from giving a deposition on the case! 
(Edwards is an author who wrote Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and several other books like this.)

Apparently Edwards has subpoenaed Seckel to give a deposition, and Epstein is desperately fighting against this! What is Epstein afraid that Seckel will say in a deposition, to file pages and pages of high-priced lawyers' citations and arguments to prevent Seckel's deposition from taking place????

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT DEPOSITION OF ALFRED SECKEL 
Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 1.280 and Rule 1.410, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, for entry of a protective order and an order quashing a subpoena commanding non-party Alfred Seckel to appear for deposition in Los Angeles, California on May 23, 2011, which subpoena Defendant Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") has noticed over the Plaintiffs objection. The grounds for this Motion are: 1. On or about April 7, 2011, counsel to Edwards noticed the deposition of Mr. Seckel, despite the fact that counsel to Edwards was advised by Plaintiffs counsel that Mr. Seckel has no knowledge of any issue in this case and is barely known to the Plaintiff at all. A copy of the Notice and Subpoena is attached as Exhibit A. 
2. The Plaintiff seeks an order quashing the subpoena and entry of a protective order to prevent the taking of this deposition indefinitely because Mr. Seckel has no relevant information about this case and to allow the deposition would effectively condone harassment

 What follows are a half-dozen pages of legalese. This is beyond weird!!

  https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01103276.pdf

Finding Skeptic Con-Man Al Seckel in the Epstein files (Part 1)

Now that the Epstein files have been (reportedly) fully released, I knew that Seckel must be in them. Seckel organized a "Mindshift" Science conference on Lolita Island, and he married the sister of Ghislaine Maxwell. The question is, what is in there? 

"Jeffrey Epstein and Al Seckel have assembled a diverse and eclectic intimate group of exceptional thinkers and achievers to discuss various topics...."

I wrote about Seckel two years ago, "The Strange Life and Death (?) of Al Seckel." (You should read that first if you're unfamiliar with the Seckel saga.) I first met Seckel at the 1984 CSICOP Conference, held at Stanford University. He was then an enthusiastic young man of twenty-six, (falsely) claiming to be a graduate student in “physics” and “history of science” at Cal Tech. (In reality, Seckel never completed a single year of college.) He sought me out because I had been a co-founder of the Bay Area Skeptics (along with the late magician Bob Steiner) just two years earlier. Seckel explained that he was in the process of founding a similar group, the Southern California Skeptics (SCS). He wanted to discuss our experiences, and get my advice. Later, he arranged for me to give the first lecture to the Southern California Skeptics.

I put a question mark after Seckel's reported death in France in 2015, which has been widely reported but never officially documented.

My search of the official DOJ Epstein Website for "Seckel" returned 1,376 results. It is obvious that many of them contain duplicate information; I have tried to manage this as best I can. So some important information might possibly be left out, although that seems unlikely. Much of their correspondence concerns agreeing on a time for a telephone talk. There are also the errors of OCR, especially around a blanked-out region. I find it funny that the email address Epstein was using was "jeevacation@gmail.com". I can imagine what kind of vacation he might have in mind! 😂 At one point (repeated in several documents), Seckel says to Epstein, "You are obviously having way too much fun," but does not specify what kind of fun he means.

What happened with the Southern California Skeptics? We find the following testimony from Bart D. Hibbs:

Seckel impersonating a real scientist

I am an engineer at AeroVironment in Simi Valley, CA.
I have known the plaintiff Al Seckel since approximately the mid 1980s. In approximately 1984, Al Seckel founded a skeptical group to counter various pseudoscientific beliefs in popular culture. This group was called the Southern California Skeptics (SCS). In
approximately1987, I was appointed by the Board to take over the role of SCS Treasurer from the previous treasurer John Edwards, and continued in this official role until the group suspended its activities sometime in 1990. Between 1987 and 1990 I was officially listed as
the SCS treasurer on all SCS mastheads. I reported to the SCS Board on a regular basis
about the finances of SCS. Al Seckel was present at these meetings, along with other SCS
board members. I also regularly attended the meetings of SCS.  I rarely see Al Seckel
anymore.
During the time that I was SCS treasurer, I personally handled all the finances and
accounting of the SCS. This task included keeping track and recording all income/expenses
of SCS, as well as check writing privileges for various SCS expenses. I made copies of all
checks, all bank deposit receipts (which included cash deposits from the basket to collect
donations during the meetings). All of this I entered into an accounting program on my
computer, and the results of the accounting were given to the SCS board at the Board
meetings, and accurate and true annual accounts were published in the LASER, the official
Newsletter of the group. I took this job very seriously, and did it myself. Al Seckel never
tried to influence me in any way in doing the accounting, was not involved in the
accounting, and I was never "under his control" as some people have falsely claimed. I am
my own person and do my own work.
While I was treasurer of SCS, at no time was there any significant income into the group,
and legitimate expenses seemed to always quickly consume any income that came in,
despite the fact that the group was run on a very tight shoestring. Any income to SCS was
quickly eaten up by expenses that related to mass promotional mailings, subscriber
mailings, printings of the flyers and other promotional literature, printing of the LASER
(the official journal of the group), subscriptions, book purchases, banquet and conference
costs, costs of the Beckman Auditorium, and other legitimate SCS expenses. On several
occasions, SCS was short funds to cover the expenses that had to be outlaid. At this point,
Al Seckel would step in and put his own personal funds into the SCS account to cover the
SCS account so that it would not be overdrawn. As SCS was always operating at a slight
loss, Seckel would rarely, if ever, reimburse himself for the money that he outlaid to cover
SCS. Other Board members also contributed some funds to keep SCS afloat. Seckel did not
"loot the skeptics out of existence" as has been falsely claimed.
The rumors that have been related to me that Al Seckel had somehow been inappropriate,
misused, or taken funds from the SCS accounts for his own personal benefit are completely
contrary to my experience and knowledge. I cannot say this more emphatically, as the truth
is just the opposite! I know of no foundation to these claims at all. The claim made by Pat
Linse that Al Seckel received $60,000 from SCS (during my tenure as treasurer 1987-1990) is absolutely false and without merit. I never saw those kinds of funds in the Skeptics at any time.
The accounting books of SCS have always been open to anyone that asked. These books
had copies of all checks deposited, originals of all checks written, copies of all deposit
receipts, all SCS bank statements, and a computerized accounting of all transactions. All of
this was prepared solely by me. A true and correct copy of the SCS accounting books were
provided to Elie Shneour, Phillip Klass, and CSICOP. I cannot recall anyone else that ever
asked me to examine them. I kept them in my possession until approximately a few years
ago, when lack of space and any interest in them, made me decide to throw them out. This
is a decision I did entirely on my own, and I did not consult with anyone about it, as SCS
had closed down its operation well over 10 years previously. This is what I informed Al
Seckel when he contacted me recently for copies of the SCS accounting books.
Finally, there have been allegations that Seckel somehow "fabricated" the accounting
books to make them appear as if he did not "loot the skeptics." I know of no reason to do
this, as the legitimate accounting books showed just the opposite: that he helped keep the
Skeptics financially afloat, rather than looting it. In addition he never accessed the
computer on which I kept the records without my presence. The computer was almost
always at AeroVironment so he could not have gained access to it without my knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this day of December , 2007 , at Simi Valley, California.
Bart D. Hibbs 

Concerning the alleged financial improprieties within SCS, the late, highly-respected Pat Linse, co-founder of the Skeptics Society, told a different story. As she explained to Michael Shermer, the other co-founder:

An amicus curiae brief on behalf of 72 Nobel laureates in support of the appellees in Edwards v. Aguillard, the case testing the constitutionality of Louisiana’s “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” That brief was organized, in part, by the Southern California Skeptics, a local group that, along with many others, emerged after the successful growth of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific nvestigation of Claims of the Paranormal—now CSI, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry).  Pat had much more to tell me about how that brief came about, and especially the inner workings of the local skeptics group and why it collapsed the previous year because of the personal shenanigans of the organizer [Seckel]. 

  As for the attendees' list for the Mindshift conference, Seckel writes the following:

Sure (all are confirmed and booked with the exception of Nathan below):
Al Seckel
Murray Gell-Mann
Gerald Sussman
Christof Koch
Frances Arnold
Leonard Mlodinow
Ron Reisman
Pablos Holman
Brock Pierce
Baron Reichart
Paul Kirkaas
Dan Dubno
Nathan Mhyrvold (waiting, trying to coordinate his schedule to come)
I had earlier asked a three other friends of mine to attend, but they had other
commitments, but will another time:
Danny Hillis
Ed Witten
Kip Thorne 

Seckel asked, 

if you can give me a date (I assume the location would be your island), what do I
offer them, in terms of travel arrangements? 

Epstein's reply was: 

everything„ hotel airfare, food

Seckel and Isabel Maxwell, speaking at the WEF, 2011

Apparently, at one point Seckel asks Epstein about "finding" his "research work" (Ha!) :(obviously "funding" - Seckel keeps apologizing for typos, blames his phone)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Al seckel < > wrote:
Do you stilt want to do you gathering?
And, would like to know if you would be interested in finding, even in part, my research work...
If this is even a remote possibility, let me know what you would need. 

Then it gets interesting. Epstein seems to be angry that he has already sent money to Seckel, who still wants more(!):

From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
To: Al seckel < >
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 11:00:26 AM
Subject: Re: MIKE IS STILL ON CALL, HE HAS BEEN WAITING 45 MINUTES FOR YOU.
II have lent you 25k paid isabels trip, given you the last 10k wired to mike with the understanding that most of the pages would be gone by nov, ten thousand was wired to him on the 20 th november. to call me and tell me the servers will go down if he doesn't get more money is ludicrous.

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Al seckel < wrote:
Christ,
This is just not what I need this morning, as I got a rate (as I told you) for cash. Trying save you $$$.
On call with WEF now. Can't speak. Call me in 30 minutes: 

From: Jeffrey Epstein <"eevacation@gmail.com>
To: Al seckel < >
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 10:30:32 AM
Subject: Re: MIKE IS STILL ON CALL, HE HAS BEEN WAITING 45 MINUTES FOR YOU.
he received a wire transfer from me„ this is silly„ i would like to ask him .his bank knows that the wire came from me„ he is going to get a 1099 for 20k so far.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Al seckel > wrote:
He asked me not to give it out. WHAT do you want me to do??? I have asked him repeatedly. You can ask him, but he won't. He doesn't want to work that way. He doesn't even know I gave you his bank info. HE WOULD EXPLODE" 

From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@qmaitcom>
To: Al seckel < >
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 10:25:44 AM
Subject: Re: MIKE IS STILL ON CALL, HE HAS BEEN WAITING 45 MINUTES FOR YOU.
I would like his number please . asap/
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Al seckel > wrote:
I have to now be on a scheduled call with the WEF. If you gave me your phone number, as I don't have your Santa Fe number, and a time he can call, then it can be arranged.
Don't force him, you have no hold, and he will walk. his services are in too high demand. 

From: Jeffrey Epstein < jeevacatior@gmail.com>
To: Al seckel < >
Sent Wed, December 8, 2010 10:20:53 AM
Subject: Re: MIKE IS STILL ON CALL, HE HAS BEEN WAITING 45 MINUTES FOR YOU. 
I expect you to give me his direct contact. i do not use conference services , for private calls. ever

From: Jeffrey Epstein < jeevacatior@gmail.com>
To: Al seckel
Sent: Tue, June 15, 2010 8:37:08 PM
Subject: Re: sunday guests
always
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Al seckel
Sean Carroll, Colwell physicist
https://en.wikipedia. r /wiki can M. art It
• ' . fun, smart, wacky. would you be up for a call early evening on sunday?
wrote: 

I am wondering who "MIKE" is 😏. Obviously these two are unwilling to risk putting any real content of their discussions down in writing.  And I don't believe for a minute that Epstein's "servers" would come crashing down unless he wired more money to Seckel!

Skywatcher UAP Class Studies Bird Flock

Hello, dear readers! I haven't posted anything in quite a while, not for any good reason, but because I didn't want to step into that foolish "Disclosure" mess. David Grusch, who it was once believed would blow apart the whole 'UFO coverup,' hasn't produced anything in several years except more unsupported claims. Luis Elizondo skipped out on a Congressional UAP briefing to attend the Alien Festival in McMinnville, Oregon, where he was a paid speaker (he first claimed to be "sick"), thereby showing where his real priorities lie. And Ross Coulthart says that one crashed UFO was so large it couldn't be moved, so they constructed a major landmark over it! Anyone who believes any of these "Disclosure" clowns is seriously deficient in critical thinking. Steven Greenstreet wrote on May 19,

Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) scheduled a classified briefing in order to give 3 UFO "witnesses" a chance to pony up and provide their alien evidence.

All 3 of them skipped the briefing, claiming to be "sick". Beyond parody.

Image by Steven Greenstreet

 

I'm writing this today about UAP class 1 - Tetra, presented by Skywatcher, a group that describes its mission as:

Skywatcher provides advanced aerial intelligence and protection systems. Founded by former military and intelligence professionals. @SkywatcherHQ

 Now, watch this video, their 'scientific analysis' of these "UAPs". Those are birds, dude!         

Here is an entire fleet of UFOs (excuse me, "UAPs"), according to Skywatcher!