Failed Prophecies, Successful Grifting

So, there is a lot of talk in UFO circles these days about Chris Bledsoe, who issues "prophecies" that he receives from The Lady, a Heavenly being who might be the Virgin Mary. Unlike most religious Prophets, Bledsoe ties his Prophecies to sightings of "orbs" and other UFOs. 

Unfortunately for Bledsoe, the star Regulus is blue, not red, and it doesn't wander around into "alignments."

For several years, Bledsoe has been Prophesying that some momentous event would occur in 2026. The 2026 prophecy centers on a claimed message from a divine or interdimensional entity he calls "The Lady" (or "The Lady in White"), involving a celestial alignment and a global shift in human knowledge. Originally scheduled for Easter Sunday, he acknowledged an error in his astronomical calculations, and now predicted that the Age of Aquarius (or something like that) would begin on October 7. Which date has come and gone, yet the world seems the same as before this "new knowledge" arrived.

Bledsoe was a popular guest at this year's Contact in the Desert UFO gathering, where you could do a workshop with him for just $29.99, or better yet an "intensive" for just $49.99.

However, we now have a brand-new Bledsoe Institute, launched right on top of the failure of his Egyptian prophecy. It explains, 

The Bledsoe Institute for Research is a nonprofit working to understand the language emerging from the orbs of light, and the ways all living things communicate.

It invites you to become a "founding angel" by making a donation. 

 

 

Hal Putoff of the Disclosure Foundation (left) hanging with Chris Bledsoe.

x

 

Dr. Avi Loeb's "UAP Science Advisory Council" has Same Government Status as Rocker Tom De Longe's "To The Stars."

So, we have been wondering what, exactly, is the status of Dr. Avi Loeb's so-called 'UAP Science Advisory Council'? Well, apparently it's one of several groups that  "advise" the intelligence community about UFOs (UAPs), but arre not sponsored by the government. 

Aaron Lukas is the Deputy Director of National Intelligence. He recently posted the following on X: 

 

So Dr. Loeb's  UAP Science Advisory Council is one of several such groups, and some of them are, frankly, rather loopy. In the Disclosure Foundation, we find many of the usual suspects, among them:

• Christopher K. Mellon, formerly of Tom DeLonge's "To The Stars".
• Astrophysicist Dr. Eric Davis, who claimed that a poltergeist followed him home from the Skinwalker Ranch. 
• Dr. Avi Loeb, naturally.
• Physicist Dr. Harold Puthoff, who tested Uri Geller's magic powers back in the 1970s, and found them to be genuine.

As well as an assortment of big movers and shakers who can undoubtedly sniff that there is money to be made in "Disclosure."

But we know all about "To The Stars" academy, having been following it from its start, and visiting its "Flagship Retail Store" several times.

TTSA's "Flagship Retail Store," Encinitas, CA, during its heyday.

Rocker Tom DeLonge (left) of Blink-182, and founder of TTSA.

               

DeLonge writes a children's' book about nudity, sold at his Flagship Retail Store.

              

 

A model of the spaceship that TTSA proposed to get us "To The Stars".

                       Tom DeLonge knows a lot about aliens. Dude, where's my saucer?

But all good things must come to an end. Around New Year's Day of 2021, TTSA seemed to be unraveling. Suddenly no more was heard from Mr. DeLonge, whose "Flagship Retail" store had suddenly closed without explanation.

So far as I am aware, Tom DeLonge is no longer associated with To The Stars, although he created it and hired the likes of Elizondo, Mellon, Puthoff, Semivan, etc. 

Good night!

 

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