Monday, February 27, 2012

A Skeptic at the 2012 International UFO Congress - Part 4

Written after the Friday sessions:

The Friday sessions began with Rosemary Ellen Guiley - ETs, Shadow People, and Djinn. Of those three types, Shadow People are seen the most. They are shadowy forms and often move in and out of children's closets (see Monsters, Inc. ). Stan Romanek has them in his home. They are allied with the Djinn, who are fighting ETs when they're not stopped up in bottles or lamps. The Djinn are seeking hybrids who have staying power in our dimension. Unfortunately, all three groups harass whoever investigates them. If you haven't already had enough of this twaddle, Guiley's website is .

Bryce Zabel - Life After Contact. Bryce is the producer of the UFO conspiracy-oriented TV series Dark Skies. Contradicting those who say that government agents are promoting alien-themed shows as part of some "disclosure" project, he says Hollywood loves aliens because they sell tickets.

Zabel says that future calendars will be labeled "A. D.", meaning "After Disclosure," because the inevitable disclosure of the alien presence will have world-changing consequences. He compared the disclosure movement to the civil rights movement, and urged UFOlogists to avoid highly-controversial and sensational claims that will alienate people from the main cause, which is disclosure. Zabel is obviously a very intelligent man, and an excellent speaker, although in my view he suffers from insufficient skepticism of verbas.  He says that After Disclosure, there will be hoarding and panic buying, civil unrest, Congressional hearings, lawsuits, etc., as people seek damages from all the government deception. If such a conspiracy exists, and if it ends, then Zabel's scenario is probably farily accurate. But that assumes a whole lot. Zabel should talk to John Alexander, who strongly believes in ET UFOs, but believes there is absolutely no government conspiracy.

Randall Nickerson - Researching the Ariel School incident. This refers to an incident occurring in Africa on Sept. 16, 1994. In Zimbabwe 62 children ages 6-12, both black and white, claim to have seen a landed UFO with "strange beings" during morning recess. Unfortunately while all of the children apparently saw it, no adult did. Nickerson and the late Dr. John Mack went there to investigate the incident, which was actually a very brave thing to do, as travel to that area is quite dangerous. Some of the children got 'images' of man's destruction of the environment, saying this must end. Nickerson's talk was self-absorbed and introspective, and frankly boring. It took him 30 minutes to get to the UFO part of the story. I don't know why those children are telling that story, and I agree that episodes such as this ought to be studied by psychologists. Perhaps somebody hoaxed the children? However, there is ample historical precedent for episodes of what appear to be mass-delusion: Father Gill's 1959 UFO sighting, day-care molestation stories, and historical episodes of witchcraft mania.  In the final analysis there is no evidence that anything actually happened, just the stories told by the children.

Stan and Lisa Romanek

Stan and Lisa Romanek (substituting for Bruce Maccabee): Stan is the guy who became famous when he posted to YouTube a video of an alien peeping in his window. Soon others were posting alien Peeping Tom videos of their own, many of them better than Romanek's. He told about how he started to have sightings of UFOs a few years back, and soon they were following him around. Before long, big-headed aliens are playing peek-a-boo in the windows of his home. Then the ETs were replaced by as many as nine alien hybrid little girls, who intrude upon his telephone calls, and also play now-you-see-me-now-you-don't. One of them is Lisa's daughter from a previous UFO abduction. Stan gets a few not-quite-clear photos of strange-looking little girls, whose images probably have been Photoshopped to give them ET features.

Stan injured himself falling off a ladder, and was going to get corrective surgery. However, before the operation he was abducted by ETs, and his injury was miraculously healed, to the astonishment of his doctor. Before finishing his talk, he mentioned in passing that someone had anonymously mailed him actual photos of the true Roswell crash debris, and he flashed them tantalizingly on the screen. Stan Romanek is a one-man paranormal factory, and I suspect these wild claims will just keep piling up for many years.

Afterward while Romanek was at his table in the vendors' room (he and his wife now have three books of wild UFO claims), I introduced myself to him, and gave him my "Bad UFOs" card. I asked him why the aliens were following him around. We chatted very briefly when somebody (probably his wife) must have whispered, "don't talk to that guy." Suddenly it was, "I can't talk to you. You just bad-mouth people. Go away." I attempted to get a photo of him and his wife (others were doing so), but he turned his face away from me (how I regret not getting that image of Romanek avoiding the camera!). He said he'd have his lawyer sue me if I took a photo; I replied that was ridiculous, since he was a public figure in a public forum. So much for "UFO research!"
It's true: the Sun will be "aligned" with the Pleiades during the Annular Eclipse of May 20, 2012. So what?
Jaime Maussan, Imminent Contact. Mexico's main UFO man gave his usual wild and implausible talk. He showed a photo of what might be a baby alien, or else a baby Chupacabra. Fleets of UFOs, he said, were watching the recent Tsunami in Japan. The annular solar eclipse (when the moon passes directly across the sun, but appears too small to cover it completely, living a bright ring around the moon's rim) that will occur on May 20, 2012 (and is visible from the southwestern U.S.) will occur with the Sun aligned with the Pleiades. Actually, that part is true. The Sun "aligns" with the Pleiades (M45) every year around May 20. So what? "Alignments" mean nothing, astronomically speaking, but they can be very pretty.

Maussan showed the famous "spiral UFOs" that were failed Russian rocket launches. He insisted that he and his colleagues did a "complete investigation" of them, and found they were authentic. The Jerusalem UFO video(s) are also completely authentic. A new wrinkle at this conference: Maussan and a few other speakers talked about "mystery sounds," usually hums, being heard at various locations around the world. Sounding like a low, distant trumpet (like in the movie Red State), these have been said by some to be Gabriel's trumpet. Or else created by UFOs.

One vendor doing a great business was A&S, "Alien and Scalpel Research," promising "scientific analysis of alien implants and UFO crash debris." I do not know how much they are charging to "scan" a person for alien implants, but I heard complaints from those who signed up about the long wait. One woman described to me her experience with A&S: they took her into the little tent at right, and "scanned" her several times with different electronic instruments. They found three implants. They also told her that she was an alien hybrid, but also had 'angelic" DNA as well. I am truly amazed at what science can learn these days. I invited her to post her experience on this Blog.


  1. Just a quick correction: It's not "Dark Sky" as the name of the NBC TV series I created and executive produced: it's "Dark Skies." Cheers.

  2. The aliens substituted Bruce Maccabee's DNA with that of Stan AND Lisa Romanek??? Good God! That alien technology is something.

  3. Do the mainstream media ever attend these zany conferences? If so where can we read about it?

  4. It's so refreshing to see an avid researcher such as yourself take an active interest in these "conventions" as you may have over the years. I would find it personally embarrassing to show my face at one of these staged, money-making scams. Hats off to you and your future endeavors to find the ultimate truth!!!!

  5. I'm with you all the way on everything here--in fact in most instances I think you're being overly kind. All but one, that is, and it's this: "I don't know why those children are telling that story. Perhaps somebody hoaxed them? In the final analysis there is no evidence that anything actually happened, just the stories told by the children."

    And this is where I come to the biggest problem with those who classify themselves as "skeptics" (as opposed to skeptical) .... You would not even consider the possibility that the reason those children are telling that story is because it happened. In other words, you're not being honest when you say you're a skeptic. You're not skeptical, you're an exclusionist.

    I don't know why for you personally, but the "skeptical" organization you write for was founded by Secular Humanists, correct? Does it not follow that the reason the organization is so dogmatic in their excluding any possibility of a paranormal or ufological explanation is because... well... they are dogmatic? Ironic, that.

    In any event, I know it's difficult to even want to investigate highly strange claims when there's a circus surrounding them. I mean people like the Romaneks and the disclosure folks are not doing us any favors in the believability department. Testing for hybrids can range from laughable to criminally dangerous depending on what the idiots behind it are doing.

    However, if you can watch video of those children being interviewed and not have your ears perk up to the overt and subtle details, there's not just something wrong with the clowns on stage. In fact, I'd say there's something wrong with a person who would continue to support these conferences with their money and time when they will not allow for the possibility of ANY of it. It's all a clown act to you, right? So you're there to be entertained not investigate.

    And there is nothing wrong with that, provided you are honest about it and not hiding behind such noble and intellectually honest sounding terms as "skeptic." A real skeptic listens for signals in the noise. Calling attention to obvious nonsense while glancing past challenging cases is not doing the work. Again, there is nothing wrong with thinking this is all only ever noise--but admit to it. This is all noise because there cannot be a signal because such would not fit your belief system.

    If you disagree with this, please tell me where and also point me to any UFO case and/or paranormal phenomenon that you find seriously intriguing and worthy of study.

    Thanks for reading.

    1. Jeremy, I think you have a valid point in that what I wrote really deserves more explanation. I agree that it is unusual that 62 children will tell a remarkable tale, with reasonable consistency. (I don't have enough information to say to exactly what degree they are consistent.)

      But let us look at some similar instances. On two separate nights in 1959, Anglican missionary Father Gill, along with about 25 natives at his mission, some of them with professional education, claimed to have seen a hovering craft, with humanoid creatures. But then they went in to dinner, and lost it! Philip J. Klass has treated this case at length, I think in UFOs Explained. They probably saw Venus and imagined the rest. But the point is, apparently here we have a case of an Authority Figure saying that he saw a certain thing, and 25 of his followers are in agreement with him.

      In my book UFO Sightings, I summarize one reliable witness case of Witchcraft, taken from the 1689 edition of Saducismus Triumphatus by Joseph Glanvill, the J. Allen Hynek of the 17th Century. "In 1669, reports reached the Swedish king concerning a large-scale outbreak of witchcraft in the village of Mohra.... the devil had apparently drawn hundreds of the village's children into his grasp....The commissioners interviewed each of the children separately..'all of them, except some very little ones' told stories that were highly consistent." Forty-eight adults and children were executed for witchcraft, "the day being bright and glorious, and the sun shining, and some thousands of people being present at the spectacle." (As in Bernstein's Candide, "What a day, What a Day, for an Auto-da-Fe, what a sunny summer sky!")

      More recently, we have seen dozens of children testifying to satanic molestation in Day Care centers, many of the claims simply impossible (involving elephants, jet planes, etc.). But people went to jail, anyway.

      So I agree that the fact of this story being told in this manner is quite unusual, and that fact alone makes it worthy of study by psychologists. But it is not unprecedented, as there are similar instances of what appear to be mass delusions. It is certainly not evidence of ET, witchcraft, or any other extraordinary claim.

    2. Thanks, Robert. I appreciate your response.

    3. "Does it not follow that the reason the organization is so dogmatic in their excluding any possibility of a paranormal or ufological explanation is because... well... they are dogmatic? Ironic, that."

      Let me ask you this: In raising this possibility, how many other possibilities did you consider as well, or did you simply stop at this one? Because this is the only one I see you addressing.

      You use two terms in your comment here, "open mind" and "signal to noise," both of which need some qualification. Merely having an open mind really doesn't lead anywhere; as I'm fond of pointing out, it simply means you don't rule out anything that someone might even *imagine*, such as extradimensional gremlins, but what does that do for us? The "critical" part of critical thinking applies factors such as plausibility and probability to open-mindedness as well, meaning that any claims also display firm evidence and eliminate, as much as possible, alternative explanations. I could very easily produce a group of children all saying the same thing - all lying. It's far more likely than them seeing an extraordinary event.

      This ties in with the "signal to noise" analogy, which is poorly chosen. You have not determined if there is any signal to be found, nor what it could be. While any event you mention might be abnormal, this hardly indicates something significant; abnormal things really do happen, which is why we can even use the word "normal."

      And I'll add in a phrase that gained great favor among the paranormal proponents, even while seeing selective use among them: "Absence of evidence is not [necessarily] evidence of absence." I added the word in brackets because, when one thinks about it, absence of evidence is the only possible thing that could *be* evidence of absence. More importantly, however, is that this adage is not applied in both directions; failing to find evidence of a hoax, for instance, does not mean that one was *not* perpetrated. This could mean that there really is a "signal" in such events, but only of someone's shenanigans.

      When I am told by someone about eyewitness evidence, the very first thing I want to hear is how much effort they made to ensure it couldn't be mistaken, misinterpreted, hoaxed, and so on - all of which we see in abundance, every day. If no such effort seems to have been made, and I hear instead about open-mindedness, I know damn well I'm dealing with their own bias. In fact, not one case that I've ever seen reached beyond the classification of "curious," since it's not possible to have "evidence" of something that cannot even be defined.

      It's really easy to dismiss naysayers, much easier than eliminating the mundane possibilities in the first place. That's childish, though. Such energy should be directed towards showing the case really *is* significant. Research scientists do this routinely, and make far less extraordinary claims.

  6. Jeremy, there is a fair point to what you're saying -- dogmatism on both sides has made ufology a joke. But look at the tables of tchotchkes at this and many other conferences: it's not a science expo, it's a fan con -- it's entertainment. No one's calling out the speakers for their unsourced and untestable assertions, their occasional lies: the speakers are telling stories the audience wants to hear -- it's entertainment.
    If you want to call out Mr. Sheaffer for condemning and not investigating, fine, he's a big boy and speak for himself. But you know very well it is the UFO community and not the skeptics who are making the positive claims, and you also know it is the UFO community that is reluctant to do proper scientific and forensic investigation that might cast doubt on its claims. The UFO community is happy to tell stories, complain about skeptics, and feel self-satisfied. That is not the fault of skpetics.
    As Mr. Randle has said, the UFO investigators who do research and cast doubt on UFO claims DON'T get invited to conferences. And you remember what happened last year when anyone dared question the practices of Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs. Even eminent folks such as Jerome Clark, who believes himself above the silliness of blind-faith fandom, went absolutely insane.
    Jeremy, you are very close to making the mistake of most ufology buffs: you feel if you can cast doubt on the critics, that's enough to establish ufological claims. But children's stories are not enough. Criticising people who say it isn't enough also isn't enough. Ufology has to stop whining and get off its collective ass; it has to apply the same scrutiny to its own claims that it applies to the character and motivations of critics. There are many individuals in ufology who are scientific in mindset, but they are few and unread by the ufology fandom.
    I am entertained by ufological claims. That is because ufology is 99.9% entertainment. But don't blame me -- ufology likes it that way.

    1. Hi, Terry The Censor:

      I'm not sure if you're asking me about the Hopkins/Jacobs stuff rhetorically because you know who I am, or not-so-rhetorically because you don't. If you do, forgive me for saying this because I don't want to sound like a guy listing his resume or something for arrogant effect, but I'm one of the reasons Jerome Clark went absolutely insane over the Hopkins/Jacobs implosion. I co-host Paratopia with Jeff Ritzmann. Our show is the reason the Emma Woods/David Jacobs scandal broke and our magazine is where Carol Rainey's article on Budd's bad research was published. Additionally, we had on Dr. Scott Lilienfeld to talk about the dangers of hypnosis and why it should not be used for memory retrieval. So, not only do I agree wholeheartedly with what you've written here, I actually am one of the few people associated with these studies doing the work one would expect a skeptical organization to properly do.

      I consistently call out ufology on air and in articles for the very flaws you state. One problem, as you know, is that nonsense is the rule, not the exception in ufology. Another, as I found out the hard way, is that friendship is more important than scholarship. Many of these people posing as researchers are in it for status, socialization, and/or to make a buck.

      There's a reason people in ufology balk at the idea of rules, peer review, and "policing the field": many of them would lose their voice. The thing is, we KNOW that. That is a given. The point has fallen on deaf ears a thousand times and I do not blame you for being entertained by the delusional go-round.

      My problem here is the disingenuous notion that a skeptic is the one doing the real investigating, the real police work, as it were. That actually takes a skeptical yet open mind, not one that has a predetermined outcome into which it must shoehorn every case lest the skeptic be thought a fool.

      And so all of this is to say that when I read a blog post like this, it's frustrating because I want to cheer on Mr. Sheaffer (and his "skeptical" colleagues) for all of the things he gets right, but I always have to stop short knowing that, Oh yeah: they've got the same bias in reverse. They allow for nothing. So they'd just as soon poke fun at or flat out dismiss legitimately intriguing cases because they are equal to the buffoonery.

      The shameful thing is that they think they are above the circus and not part of it.

      Ufologists, on the whole, have shown themselves to be immune from criticism. Will skeptics take the same path?

      Laughing at Stan Romanek is easy. Lumping everyone in with him is just plain lazy. If Secular Humanism holds no room for wonderment beyond materialism, then it makes perfect sense that there is no legitimate mystery in any of this to a Humanist. It therefore means that they cannot rightly call themselves investigators. They've got their answers. It's all nonsense. Examining evidence is just a thing they like to say they do to sound neutral.

      But it's okay because providing evidence is just a thing ufology likes to say to sound authoritative.

      All of that, the cottage industry. Everyone's got their answer. No one likes a riddle.

    2. When the "open minded" are faced with the freak show that is ufoolery, it's always those mean ol' skeptics' fault that none of these so-called paranormal fairy tales can even begin to be true.

      Get this, Jeremy: It's not only the failure of the pseudoscience of ufoolery and other unreal woo fantasies, it's that the overwhelming weight of our one social reality and specific real-world evidence precludes any of this nonsense from ever being true. Just as there never was a "face on Mars" for example, there aren't any real "UFOs" of any kind and there never were.

      But if you have what you think is an interesting case, I'll be glad to explain why it most probably isn't (while wearing my skeptic's hat).

      The would-be paranormalist is possessed by his subject, the scientific realist has dominion over it (as well as many other mundane things).

      For an in-depth analysis of your fundamental logical error, see:

  7. Hi Robert!

    It's Richie, I'm the guy in the A&S photo getting "scanned" for implants. It was $20.00, and they used a variety of technical gadgets to detect abnormalities via signals being read by the devices. Both of those men working there I believe all come from technical and scientific backgrounds. I opted out of getting a psychic reading...I was only interested in the data that the devices came up with.

    It was my first time at one of these type of conventions and it was an interesting experience. While I do believe that roughly 95% of all UFO sightings are misidentified, its that 5% of sightings that interest me. My background is in Aerospace, and Astronomy, so I know a lot of people categorize natural phenomenoa (i.e. clouds) , meteors, or satellites as UFO's.

    There were a few stories that were too outrageous for me to believe, but there were others that I can't completely rule out due to physical evidence and data. Anyways, it was great meeting, and hanging out with you at the convention. Hope to see you next year?

    Richie Bauer

    1. Richie, you didn't tell us what your "scan" revealed. Did they find any implants? Did they tell you any other findings?

    2. They found six implants on me, and because of that high amount - he recommended that I go for a medical check up, as well as getting xrays. He gave me his business card to contact him for a follow-up in case my doctors do find anything out of the ordinary.

      I would not object to any DNA profiling. I have a rare blood type (O-) for someone of my type of ancestry (mixed with Latin, Asian, and European bloodlines). It would be interesting to find out more information.

      Negative on the psychic reading. The reason I choose to opt out of that is I am solely interested in any physical evidence and data. I rather have something tangible to test, research, investigate on when it comes to (alleged) foreign objects in my body.

      - Richie Bauer

  8. Mr. Bauer -

    This is quite interesting, thank you for posting. In addition to the scans for implants, I am curious if the gentlemen offered any opinions as to whether you are a hybrid.

    It would be fascinating to see individuals identified as hybrids by their method(s) undergo some standard genetic (DNA) profiling experiments to see what turns up regarding ancestry.

    I propose that all three of us attend the meeting next year and have tests performed by A&S. Each of us can then augment that data with some DNA profiling. Although you and Mr. Sheaffer are known to the company personnel, they have no idea who I am. Could be interesting. Very interesting.

  9. zoamchomsky:

    "But if you have what you think is an interesting case, I'll be glad to explain why it most probably isn't (while wearing my skeptic's hat)."

    Right. Again, you will go in with the conclusion that there's nothing to see here, which proves my point about folks with your mindset not being investigators. Now, you can say that is "ufoolery's" fault all you want but the fact remains that whether someone in ufology is doing really good research or really bad it's all pseudoscience to you. You cannot allow yourself to acknowledge good research because you cannot allow yourself to acknowledge that there's anything there worth studying. Thus, I could not present to you an interesting case to begin with. Ze conclusion... she is forgone, no?

    If I thought something was utter nonsense I wouldn't bother with it. I would not study it, certainly. I might roll my eyes and poke fun at it if it came up in conversation, but that's the extent of my arrogance. I most certainly would not form or join an organization just to keep obsessively making fun of it over and over again and read books and go to conferences and answer people on message board, etc. That's just not what mentally healthy adults do, I don't think.

    So, I think there's enough obsessiveness and foolery to go around.

    1. I thought it was the burden of the claiment to provide empiracle evidence of proof, and not the interviewer. It's been pointed out time and time again that an eyewitness report just don't swing it. Words do not add up to concrete evidence which cannot equal existance. Most of the claiments stepping up to the plate to cash in are second-hand news spreaders and they certianly don't give a damn about real evidence. I can't consider myself a bonafide expert researcher about anything, but I am a proponent of critical thinking, because besides allowing you to wade through the BS everyone is so eager to spread around it can literally save your life. The only incident which, to me, defies rational explaination is the Illinois UFO back in 2000. I haven't seen to many "skeptics" touch that gem. But, once again, we can only rely on words. Wish the hell something could've fallen off whatever was flying around that night.

    2. ||"But if you have what you think is an interesting case, I'll be glad to explain why it most probably isn't (while wearing my skeptic's hat)."||

      Jeremy: "Right. Again, you will go in with the conclusion that there's nothing to see here, which proves my point about folks with your mindset not being investigators."

      As if the "UFO" myth and collective delusion were the property of self-styled "UFO" investigators and other believers in the myth. Jeremy, people with good sense, rational adults know that there are no REAL "UFOs" of any kind and there never were. It's all nothing but a media-manufactured myth; and the article I linked demonstrates that only by uncritical and fundamentally irrational thinking, and ignoring the obvious, can people even begin to believe that such nonsense as completely fictional "UFOs" might be true.

      Simply because some extraordinary claim might be barely possible, doesn't make it plausible. There are innumerable extraordinary claims that can never be true. Get it?
      Read the article. If you want to be taken seriously, drop this phony "ufoologists vs skeptic" argument and consider where ALL the evidence leads: the subject of "UFOs"
      is a failed hypothesis, only revived by ad hocs, the very definition of a pseudoscience.

      Sorry, Jeremy, the "UFO" myth and collective delusion, "UFO" kooks and conspiracy theorists, "UFO" cults and new-age religions are subjects in the domains of folklorists, popular-culture critics, cultural historians, sociologists and social psychologists. It's not even a matter of whether "UFO" reports might represent some extraordinary stimuli, in the real world that was never even plausible since there was an obvious and much more reasonable explanation. There are no "UFO" facts in the world. The century-old origin of the idea of "UFOs" as impossible ubiquitous phantom airships exposes its own absurdity.

  10. Hi Robert!!! It's Leda :) Your buddy from the Ufo Conference! I went with Richie and Marlon :)
    I am the hybrid with angelic DNA...I have to call my doctor this week to go figure out my DNA situation...Yes, it was a interesting experience...I did the whole package...They took me inside the black dark tent and scanned me for any dye in my skin...Apparently if you have dye that means you were abducted less than a month ago...I didn't have any! YAY! But that's because I am a hybrid :) I can already see you smiling! HA! Well then they took me outside where you see Richie sitting in the picture and scan me for any implants...Apparently I have 3 implants...I later proceeded to go back in the black tent where they gave me a ET psychic reading...In the reading they explained I have so much energy coming from my body...he said I have a lot more implants and that I am a hybrid...I was born this way...He said I have angel DNA and I am connected directly to angels and they protect me at all times...He said I have a lot of knowledge and that I am psychic...Was a bit intense but was nice!
    Like Richie this was my first UFO conference...Definitely was interesting and special all at once.

    I was grateful to meet amazing individuals like yourself...You kept the crowd going with your questions! HA! Plus I loved that I got to learn so much from different people...Once you are there you kind of get caught up in the whole ufo world but I have a bit of a different intake on all of it so for me it was magical...I connected with the spiritual side of things...Like I LOVED Cynthia Crawford with all her sculptures. Was very uplifting and magical...
    I LOVED Dr. Steven Greer and he made me a believer for sure...I ALSO am aware that certain individuals can take things a bit too far for whatever reason like the Romaneks...I just didn't connect with his story...Not a believer of their videos or stories...I mean I know he was crying on stage but I felt bad I didn't feel bad for him! HA! What did you think of that? I also didn't appreciate them being rude to you...If they believe in ETs then they should believe in the power of LOVE and ONENESS which means love and kindness to all...

    Okay I had promised you I would comment on your blog but I wrote a book!!! What happened to my picture!!! I was after all the Queen of the Ufo Conference...Wouldn't you agree?!?!

    Love and light,
    Leda xxx

    1. Hello, Leda.

      Good to hear from you. I hope your angelic DNA is in top form. But I if I were you I wouldn't bother your doctor with a thing like that. He will think you're a little weird.....

      I have the photo of you embracing Greer. Do you want me to post it on the Blog, or send it to you by private email? You can contact me,

      Frankly, I think that Greer is 'full of it.' Those claims he made about his friends being murdered by the conspiracy, the alleged $2 billion bribe offered him, plus this theatrical stunt about his "bodyguard" (did you see that Rambo guy with him on Friday night? Who wasn't there Saturday when he spoke?). I believe I already mentioned to you that several women had told me that they found Greer to be highly charismatic. Frankly, I don't see that, but then I'm not a woman.

      Yes, you were definitely Queen of the UFO Congress!

    2. Hi Robert!!!
      Been so swamped since I returned from the UFO Congress that I wasn't able to email you right away...
      I will email you tomorrow so we can chat...Loving the blog so far! You are so on point yet so funny! I am definitely a hybrid with angelic DNA for sure...
      I was photographed a lot this past weekend and all these orbs were surrounding you think those are ETs spirits that followed me from the Arizona congress?
      So nervous! lol

      I think Greer may be on to something no? He did have his security guard there on Saturday...He was so scary looking! lol But no match for this Hybrid as I was able to take pics with Greer!

      Love love love this blog! hahaha

      Thanks Robert ;) xxx

      PS - How do I get a name on here? Don't like to be Anonymous grrr

    3. Leda, if you select "Reply as: Name/URL", I think you can enter your name. Other people have done that.

      Are you sure you saw Greer's bodyguard on Saturday, when Greer spoke, not Friday? He should have been there in the hallway, when Greer was mobbed by his fans after his talk. The Conspiracy might have been able to smuggle somebody into that crowd, and assassinate him.

      Usually "orbs" are just light reflections inside the lens, but who knows? Maybe the ETs liked your angelic DNA so well that they will be following you around, like Bijou follows Steven Greer?

  11. OMG! Forgot to mention Robert: You posted your post at 1:11pm!!! The power of the ones!
    Leda xxx

  12. But Leda, did you notice Richie Bauer's posting? It was on Feb 29 (a 1 day in 4-years day), year 2012, at precisely 12:12.

    Beat that if you can.

    1. OMG!!! You're right! That is so insane!!!
      All a sign I tell ya! confirmation! Leda xxx

  13. Methinks Greer's "bodyguard" is more theater for his family than the audience. Disclosure, indeed.

    But what do I know? I'm just a small town country doctor.

  14. Aww Vaeni, because you're flab-central, you're just jealous of Dr. Greer's muscles! At least that kook keeps in shape, unlike you!

    1. Really? Fat insults? To a guy who constantly makes fat jokes about himself? Sorry, Anonymous Coward. You've got to get better material to hurt me.

    2. Aww, Anonymous, unfortunately Greer's muscles were implanted by ETs, as well :-(

    3. Aww, Anonymous Anonymous, one of Vaeni's postulants no doubt; unfortunately Vaeni's psychotic trance dancing on Youtube is the result of implants from ETs, as well, using your logic. ;^(

  15. I did not see or meet you at the UFO Congress, and I'm pretty happy about that because a lot of your comments here are quite annoying to me. If Leda was Queen of the Congress, I was the Empress. I am close friends with Stan and Lisa and I heard about your confrontation. You also drilled Patty Greer, but I fail to see her responses to you here. I am also friends with David and Crystal Sereda, and if you have not tried their crystal protocols you are missing out. I am one of Yvonne Smith's cases, and it was because of her that I KNOW my encounters are real. I also was scanned for implants, and they found seven. Four years ago I had xrays and a MRI done and four "anomalies" showed up. I appreciate skeptics, but your attitude that we're all wackos is offensive. I'm no big fan of Steven Greer personally, but I have been with him when he's meditated to bring in craft. I have been out sky watching with Kim Carlsberg in Sedona and we've seen MANY unknowns. Let's remember it's important to keep an open mind. Disclosure is inevitable and when it happens, you'll change your tune. "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you....thus proving you have won."

    1. Dear Anonymous Empress,

      I would not recognize Patty Greer, but as far as I know I did not meet her. I certainly would not "drill" someone without knowing who she is. As for Stan Romanek, he acted like a petulant child.

      When people like yourself, or Greer, go out skywatching and see many "unknowns," it is usually because they cannot identify satellites or high-altitude aircraft when they see them. As for the Sereda crystal protocols, I guess I am just going to have to miss out on that.

      I don't mean to take sides in disputes among Royalty, but since I don't know who you are, I'd have to vote for Leda as Queen of the Congress.

  16. You say, presumably citing Nickerson: "Nickerson and the late Dr. John Mack went there to investigate the incident, which was actually a very brave thing to do, as travel to that area is quite dangerous."

    O really? Ruwa (where the schoolchildren supposedly saw a UFO) is a bland suburb of Harare, and has never been a dangerous place -- not even during the Rhodesian Bush War, according to a veteran of my acquaintance. It's in a Shona area (by several hundred miles) so escaped the bloodletting of the mid 1980s, and not agricultural, so the post-2002 farm closures wouldn't have affected it. In other words, it's a hype -- Nickerson is playing on a stereotype of Zimbabwe that's held by people who don't know anything about the country or the people beyond that it's (a) African [oo-er mum] (b) a dictatorship and (c) has had more than its fair share of violence, although that has always been distinctly localized.

    If Nickerson is that far from being accurate about the context of this supposed UFO event, what's anyone to make of the rest of his account?

  17. The film on the Ariel School sighting is in progress but we need your help! Visit for an update on the film and see an exclusive film trailer! Follow our progress on Facebook at “Ariel School Documentary” and Twitter @arielschoolfilm. We need your help to finish this important documentary. Please donate via the film’s website and check out the cool gifts we’re offering as our thanks!

  18. The production team at Ariel Phenomenon, the definitive documentary on the Ariel School event, has just launched an Indiegogo campaign to raise necessary funds to help finish this important documentary this year! Please visit to watch the campaign video that includes never before seen footage, and learn how you can help! The campaign will run from May 4 - June 18, 2015. Spread the word!

  19. From what I watched all 62 kids at the school didn't see the ufo, a few kids say they only seen black men with about 4 or so claiming the ufo and aliens being seen, I think it was a scam to make money from the stories and they used the 4 kids to do it, in the U S the cia has a group of pedophiles who drug kids then rape them, afterwards they feed them stories while drugged making them think they were abducted etc.

  20. They make you think all 62 kids at the school seen the events but later find out only 6-8 say they saw something, out of those only 6 claimed to see the ship and out of those only 4 seen aliens and their stories didn't match, pictures they drew were all different, in the United States the CIA used to drug kids and rape of molest them, then they would us the drug to feed them a story making them believe they were abducted and probed etc. The program started as Mk Ultra and was later changed to project Monarch. Many of the people claiming to have been abducted were actually victims of the CIA mind control programming.


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.