April Blog- random thoughts

 It is worth paying attention to an interesting issue that is rarely mentioned. Take, for example, such an outstanding scientist as Stephen Hawking was undoubted. Physicist, cosmologist, author of many works and books. We will certainly agree that someone with such a brilliant mind will give us a matter-of-fact opinion on the burning issue of whether Earth could be visited by aliens potentially responsible for some UFO sightings. Well, in 2008, during a TED Talk, Professor Stephen Hawking expressed the following opinion:

"Aliens don't seem to be visiting us. UFO reports aside. Why would they only appear to freaks and freaks?"

In other words, Stephen Hawking didn't even consider reports of UFO sightings. Why would UFOs be observed exclusively by "freaks"? Observations are discarded in advance so as not to bother with them. At this point, it's worth asking yourself the following question - was Stephen Hawking right or wrong? Perhaps only 'freaks' report UFO sightings? Before expressing his opinion on such an interesting matter, Stephen Hawking certainly did the famous 'research' after which he was tempted to make such a strong statement. Well, he didn't.

First, in 1975, physics professor Peter Sturrock conducted a study among members of the American Astronomical Society. As it turned out, 5% of them had seen a UFO. Would Stephen Hawking describe them as 'freaks' and 'lunatics'? If so, it should also be used to describe at least two presidents of the United States - both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan described having witnessed UFO sightings. However, UFO sightings were reported by a large number of military personnel, fighter pilots and airline pilots. If Stephen Hawking knew that some pilots of such planes reported UFO sightings, would he have labeled the pilots 'freaks' before boarding the plane?

Second, Stephen Hawking was able to peek at Project Blue Book data. This project was led by the United States Army, which was investigating UFOs. Special Report No. 14 of the Blue Book Project details where the UFO sightings come from and what their value is. Nowhere is it mentioned that 100% of the sightings come from 'lunatics'. On the contrary, analysts have classified many of the cases as 'excellent' in terms of quality, noting that the UFO observers were credible individuals, such as airline pilots or trained military personnel. Moreover, in the 'diagnosed' category, only 1.5% of cases were considered psychological or 'crazy' cases.

Stephen Hawking, however, was not interested in checking any data. Stephen Hawking did his 'own research' in that he didn't do it at all. If such absurd arguments are made by scientists of the caliber of Hawking, then there is a serious problem. Many people who are completely unfamiliar with the subject may take such words for granted. Let's put ourselves in the position of the average bread eater who thinks to himself: 'Oh, this famous Stephen Hawking rejects UFOs because only freaks can see them. He's probably right, but aliens don't visit us.' It is not difficult to understand why some people reject the topic of UFOs, since even such eminent scientists as Professor Stephen Hawking allowed themselves to be deceived here. It is easy to think that such a renowned physicist and cosmologist knows what he is talking about, and then to accept his opinion.

If we think about it for a moment, the whole thing is really astounding. How is it possible that a mind like Stephen Hawking, whom I'm sure all of you rightly respect, could be so easily deceived and led astray? Well, the fault lies on many sides. Probably all Hawking has heard about UFOs are a few sensational stories being circulated by the media, who like to focus on 'crazy' cases in an attempt to show that UFOs are being observed by madmen. The media likes to act this way according to the golden rule 'focus on the extreme and try to convince yourself that the extreme is the norm'. As you can see, the tactic is taking its toll, since it managed to deceive even the leading scientist of recent years. Not only do some average eaters of bread ignore UFO reports thinking that it is complete nonsense, the situation is similar in the case of scientists. Many of them have preconceived the opinion that there is nothing interesting in this, and therefore should be ignored, omitted any observations.

Let's take a second example. Josef Allen Hynek was a professor of astronomy who served as a scientific adviser to three US military UFO programs, most notably the aforementioned Blue Book Project. When the military hired him, Hynek was very skeptical about UFO reports. Hynek suspected that the sightings were made by unreliable witnesses or people who had misidentified man-made or natural objects. Josef Allen Hynek even said that "the whole subject seems completely absurd" and described it as "a fashion that will pass soon." However, in the course of many years of research, Hynek began to change his mind. In one famous statement, he said: 'Ricking is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The constant stream of reports, often drawn up in concert by reliable observers, raises questions about scientific duty and responsibility.'

After much research, Hynek moved on to the camp considering the so-called the extraterrestrial hypothesis that alien spacecraft are responsible for some UFO sightings. In one of the interviews, Hynek drew attention to an interesting point, namely a conversation he had with another famous astronomer, Carl Sagan. Sagan had mixed feelings about UFOs, being skeptical about whether some of them were vehicles from outer space. As Hynek stated, Carl Sagan did not study UFOs at all. Hynek told of a situation when he and Sagan were together at Harvard University discussing UFOs. Sagan was very skeptical about the matter. In an interview, Hynek quotes the dialogue:

'I asked him what he thought about this particular case in New York. He had never heard of it. I asked him what he thought about this particular case in Wisconsin. He had never heard of it. I went on, case by case, case by case. Never heard of it, never studied it. Then I said: Carl, you know as well as I do that before a scientist talks about something, he should be familiar with the literature, he should research it. And he said yes, but I don't have time for that kind of thing.'

In other words, Carl Sagan did not have time to research and become familiar with the various UFO cases, but at the same time he found time for skeptical statements about the extraordinary nature of the phenomenon. Both of these cases, both of Hawking and Sagan, show us that even the most eminent scientists are willing to express their opinions without proper knowledge of the subject. This is because it is very easy to cross out the subject of UFOs in advance, indicating that one does not have time to check various cases, or that observers are just weirdos. Then many people listen to such statements and swallow them like young pelicans. Journalists uncritically reproduce such statements in the media, pointing out that they come from recognized scientists, and average people reading such materials form a similar opinion.

Christopher Mellon, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, responsible for making three UFO recordings public in 2017, wrote in his article 'The Fermi Paradox Paradox':

'Unfortunately, the UFO stigma persists among many, perhaps most, scientists. Worse still, some scientists spread disinformation. For example, I was amazed to see prominent SETI researchers asking in public forums, "If UFOs are real, why don't commercial airline pilots ever see them?" How could these SETI scientists be so wrong when a simple Google search is all it takes to find reliable data on thousands of UFO sightings by commercial airline pilots? Similarly, an astronomer at the University of Arizona published an article in 2020 making the preposterous claim that UFO sightings "...stop at the borders of Canada and Mexico." Again, if the author or his editors had spent 5 minutes searching the Internet, they would have quickly learned that Canada and Mexico abound in UFO sightings, photos, videos, and even military reports.'

In other words, the standard lick Fri. 'I don't know but I'll tell you.' The problem is that no one really confronts the false information that is being repeated about UFOs. Basically, you can say the biggest bullshit and people will accept it as revealed truth anyway. In recent years this has been slowly changing, but not so long ago many people dared to say with full conviction that this UFO does not exist at all. And if one is compelled to accept their existence, then a 'brilliant' counter-argument must be devised to be lenient on the extraterrestrial hypothesis. All concocted arguments are completely discreditable based on false probabilities, logical fallacies or plain untruth. There is only one good counter-argument - despite the abundance of all the elements, the wreckage of the spacecraft or the bodies of its occupants have not been found. No alien in his ship stopped at Krakowskie Przedmieście or in front of the White House. If aliens visit us, there is no physical evidence of such visits that we can touch, examine and confirm (unless such evidence is being hidden from the public as whistleblowers point out). They may just be watching us, but we can't be 100% sure yet.

A reasonable statement about UFOs goes something like this: 'UFOs exist and sightings have been going on for thousands of years. The universe is so vast, full of stars and planets, and the Earth is relatively young, which means that we should somewhat expect visits from extraterrestrials, if only in the form of unmanned exploration probes. We have thousands of UFO sightings from reliable observers around the world, recordings, photos and special military reports describing unknown flying vehicles with unusual flight characteristics. Some of these objects may be ships of alien civilizations, but so far we have no physical evidence in the form of such a ship that we could touch and examine. It is therefore worth continuing the research.'

So Stephen Hawking could have said just that. Other scientists could also speak in this tone, presenting intellectual honesty. However, they usually don't do that. Many of them never did any research or dismissed the whole phenomenon as nonsense. The worrying thing is that absurd arguments and denial can deceive even the most outstanding scientists. This then gives rise to popular myths that seem plausible to the uninformed average eater, especially when heard from scientists.

Many popular articles about UFOs in the press are created in such a way that a confused journalist contacts a random scientist like physicist, astronomer, astrobiologist, asking him for his opinion on this strangely popular UFO topic of late. It seems that it makes sense - someone like that will probably be well acquainted with the whole subject and 'explain' what to think about it all. However, life shows that this is not the case at all, and frighteningly often the alleged 'expert' knows nothing because he has not read any studies, official reports, data or books. It's easier to say that it's just balloons and drones, after all.

'I don't know, but I'll tell you.'

'I will state my opinion as fact.'

'I will rely on the opinion of an uninformed person.'

Once again, it's worth using the same example - it's a bit like if an uninformed journalist was tasked with writing an article about Rafael Nadal, and therefore asks for the football journalist's opinion on him. Both football and tennis are sports, sports journalists cover them, but a football journalist may not necessarily have the necessary knowledge to cover Rafael Nadal in detail. He may have it, because in addition to football, he may also be interested in tennis, thanks to which he will make a detailed analysis and point out everything step by step. However, all he can say is phrases like: 'Rafael Nadal is a tennis player, he won something in his life, probably the whole, well, Tour de France' or present his opinion that Novak Djokovic is better as fact.

Contrary to appearances, most people are interested in the issue of extraterrestrial life, or that aliens could visit our planet. However, interest can quickly fade if one listens to such statements of experts, scientists who basically downplay the whole topic. It is easy to lose enthusiasm and reject the topic of UFOs as uninteresting. Meanwhile, contrary to what the media show, the scientific community is divided on this matter - some people are actually prejudiced in advance and annoyed by UFO research, but a whole lot of people are open to scientific research, collecting and analyzing data. Professor Peter Sturrock conducted an interesting study on this topic almost 50 years ago. As it turned out, skepticism and opposition to UFO research among astronomers was correlated simply with a lack of knowledge and familiarity with research: only 29% of those who spent less than an hour reading on the subject were in favor of further research, compared with 68% who spent more than 300 hours.

Let us remember that all the necessary information regarding UFOs is publicly available. All you need to do is spend some time getting to know them. It is understandable that many people do not intend to do this, because life is full of other, more pleasant pastimes. It is incomprehensible, however, how someone can speak in a decisive tone on a topic about which they have no clue otherwise. So we are waiting to see what the next UFO hearing in the US Senate Committee will bring.

From time to time, average bread eaters in Poland come across information that is hard to believe. A glance at the headline causes deep disbelief. That UFOs exist? That the Pentagon is conducting official research on UFOs? And that the team leader thinks some UFOs may be alien probes? How is this possible? After all, if that were the case, I, an average bread eater, would have learned about it from popular news programs, such as News, Fakty, Teleexpress, Events. The newscasts on the radio would mention it, and in the neighborhood store, reaching for a hearty eggplant, I would hear passionate discussions of customers about whether there are finally beings on Earth characterized by the legendary ability known as 'intelligence'.

Such interesting UFO reports would certainly be dissected by Polish journalists, known for writing meticulous articles on such important topics as their own feelings after a visit to an aqua park or describing a daring train ride, something that apparently lies beyond the reach of readers who crave I want to read these kinds of reports. Let's make a deal - if research on UFOs was conducted and high-ranking officials claimed that they could be vehicles of an alien civilization, then journalists would rise to the occasion and provide the average bread-eaters with all the necessary information in an accessible way. Certainly, they would not ignore such reports, they would not treat them with indulgence, believing that there are more important topics that should be presented to Polish citizens, such as the birth of an anteater in the local zoo or the last dress worn by a celebrity. For peculiar reasons, however, the subject of UFOs is neglected. Most people still know nothing about any studies, recordings, reports or statements.

Therefore, when someone browsing the Internet encounters this type of article, there is also an element of disbelief on a portal that someone may consider reputable. Does this UFO exist? And is there any research by the Pentagon? And they still say they might be aliens? That's a scandal. This cannot be so, because if it were, the average bread eater would have heard something about it earlier, would be properly prepared for this type of information. And when he wasn't, and when he suddenly discovers this type of article by surprise, there are two possibilities. Either a denial mechanism should be used, recognizing that it is simply impossible and omitting the information, or one should read the article to find out the details. Life has shown that reading more than the headline is often beyond the reach of the average bread-eater. In most cases, people are too lazy to read anything, although sometimes the problem is that reading the article is only available after turning off the ad blocker.

So what will we learn if we come across this type of article on one of the Polish Internet portals once every few months? The first thing we discover is that this article does not come from Onet.pl at all, but from the so-called 'prestigious' media company 'Politico'. The author of the article is a certain Lara Seligman who describes stories from the Pentagon for the said Politico. Some time ago, Onet established cooperation with Politico, thanks to which it can publish their materials and show them to Polish readers. So let's see what we can learn from this article. I quote:

In a draft paper dated March 7, Sean Kirkpatrick, head of AARO, the U.S. Department of Defense's office for unexplained phenomena and objects in the atmosphere, and Harvard University professor Avi Loeb wrote that objects that seem to defy all the laws of physics can be " probes" originating from an extraterrestrial "mother ship".

At this point, it is worth noting that many readers may be shocked to learn that there is an 'office' in the US that investigates the UFO phenomenon. Not only that - as we read, the head of this AARO office, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, wrote a paper with Harvard University professor Avi Loeb that some UFOs may be alien probes. For any person who has never heard of the developments of recent years, such statements seem to be, to put it mildly, astonishing. As we read, the work was published on March 7, 2023. The article is from yesterday, April 14, 2023. Let's read on:

'After Loeb posted it online, the article circulated on science news sites. POLITICO has confirmed its authenticity.'

In other words, the paper was published on March 7, 2023, it is on the official website of Harvard University from the beginning, but we know that such an article actually exists because Politico "confirmed its authenticity." It is worth appreciating such a quick action that took only 39 days. The Politico article then summarizes Loeb and Kirkpatrick's work describing that 'unexplained objects being investigated by the US Department of Defense may be 'probes' from the mothership.'

At this point, the uninformed reader may ask what unexplained objects are meant. Well, although the article does not mention it, in 2021 and 2023 the ODNI, i.e. the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, published two reports on UFOs. In both of them, there are 314 UFO reports that remain unexplained, with many of the sightings involving objects that appear to be performing highly advanced maneuvers. Some incidents have been recorded and made publicly available, such as Gimbal or Tic Tac. The general population still thinks of the popular dragees when they hear 'Tic Tac'. While the recordings have been made public, the pilots have been interviewed, and reports exist, most people have never heard of it. It was more important to inform people about celebrities.

But back to the Politico article. Basically, the entire work written by Loeb and Kirkpatrick, titled 'Physical Limitations of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena', is about how such objects might behave. The paper suggests that aliens could send a 'mothership' to other stars, from which smaller craft would then separate and travel to Earth. This is how some UFO sightings can be explained - they would be small space probes that separated from the parent ship.

'The paper compared the probes to 'dandruff seeds' that can be separated from their parent ship by the sun's gravity. The authors analyze the physics of how smaller craft could navigate through Earth's atmosphere to reach the surface where they could be seen by humans.'

The problem with this article is twofold. On the one hand, it is worth appreciating that the head of the Pentagon's UFO office is writing an article on this subject, suggesting that some objects may come from outer space. It's a bold statement. The aim of the work, however, was to determine the limitations of this type of objects. This immediately generates a lot of problems. For example, in the work we read that:

'Probably any functional devices embedded in the Earth's atmosphere do not carry biological beings, because they would not survive the long journey through interstellar space and its harsh conditions, including the energetic bombardment of cosmic rays, X-rays and gamma rays.'

One of the assumptions is that the alleged alien ships, if they were to come from outer space, probably have no passengers on board. The journey would allegedly be too long and the radiation too dangerous. If we humans would have a problem with that in 2023, then so would the more technologically advanced aliens, right? Moreover, Professor Avi Loeb, who is also not an expert on interstellar propulsion, suggested that the mothership may be ... just a rocket with conventional chemical propulsion, because the rockets carry their fuel, can navigate to a chosen planet and slow down near it.

As we read in the Politico article:

'The summary of the document says that these objects seem to defy the laws of physics: at the speed at which they are moving, scientists would expect to see a 'ball of fire'. The lack of a fireball or other typical "signatures" suggests "inaccurate measurements of distance (and therefore speed)".

In other words, according to Professor Loeb, if the Tic Tac, Gimbal, or any vehicle observed by the military doesn't generate a bright optical fireball by friction with the surrounding air and water, then the measurements are probably wrong. In his opinion, this is impossible, which shows the technological myopia of Professor Loeb, who is not willing to consider hypothetical more advanced propulsion systems than those we currently know. The aliens will use technology similar to that of humans.

These three arguments make the work controversial, to put it mildly, but for different reasons than those claimed by the alleged 'experts', which we'll get to in a moment. In general, Loeb and Kirkpatrick try to determine what seems 'possible' at present and what would be expected when observing unidentified vehicles. As Alejandro Rojas, board member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, states, 'The purpose of the paper is to challenge researchers to "exhaustively investigate objects before concluding that the laws of physics are being violated. The article states that Kirkpatrick "is open to considering the possibility of alien existence, but needs stronger arguments to claim that the laws of physics are being violated."

The claim that UFOs 'break the laws of physics' is hasty to say the least. Scientists in the past have repeatedly claimed that hypothetical propulsion is impossible, that it is impossible to build a heavier-than-air flying machine, doubts about the functionality of rockets. Perhaps more technologically advanced aliens have developed a drive that allows them to travel through the atmosphere without generating a 'bright fireball', as well as without a sonic boom. But let's get back to the point, once again quoting Politico:

"The documentary was made after Kirkpatrick contacted Loeb in the fall saying he would be in the Boston area and would like to meet up," Loeb told us. During the meeting, Kirkpatrick urged the professor to write a paper, but the two did not collaborate until earlier this year.'

We read important information here. After Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, an experienced physicist and government official, was appointed head of the new UFO Office, he decided to contact Professor Loeb. They met only recently, resulting in a joint work signed with their names, although in fact the main contribution to this work was made by Professor Avi Loeb. In a moment we will consider how Sean Kirkpatrick actually works. But first, let's move on to the last paragraph of the Politico article. Well, the author decided to ask for the opinion of another 'expert' who will throw a different light on the whole UFO issue. Let's listen carefully:

'David Jewitt, a professor of astronomy at the University of California, Los Angeles, said some of the claims made in the unpeer-reviewed paper were "highly questionable." He called the fact that Kirkpatrick co-authored the paper "strange." "Military aviation is very good at bombing, but I don't trust them much with their UFO research," says Jewitt, recalling that in 1948 a military pilot crashed chasing a UFO that later turned out to be the planet Venus.'

Here we have a standard situation that appears in most articles of this type written for a wider audience. If a journalist is already forced to report on UFO events, he must also consult the so-called 'experts'. At this point, the logical conclusion is that the 'expert' who will speak out in the press will certainly be a person who has gone to any lengths to research the subject of UFOs, someone who has read scientific publications on the subject, someone who has read official reports on UFOs from USA, as well as from other countries, e.g. the COMETA report, someone who looked at the recordings, photos and testimonies of thousands of military personnel from different countries of the world. Well, no. In these types of articles, a random 'expert' is usually asked for an opinion, which is usually an astronomer, or possibly a physicist. It's more or less like a journalist asking a football journalist for his opinion on Rafael Nadal. Not close, but not really.

So what did the professor of astronomy tell us? Well, the claims contained in the work are 'highly doubtful'. Though Jewitt didn't elaborate, he probably meant the fact that a Pentagon official is signing off on a paper on a mothership and alien probes coming to Earth. That Sean Kirkpatrick is the co-author of this paper is 'weird'. Moreover, we also read that the professor of astronomy believes that "when it comes to research on UFOs, he doesn't really trust military aviation." In other words, standard counter-arguments postulated by 'experts' who have no idea about the subject they are talking about. I once made an entire lengthy video about it, showing that most scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, are actually ignorant of UFOs because they have assumed in advance that there is nothing interesting about the subject. And since there is nothing interesting, they ignore all the reports of pilots and the military, downplay the recordings, photos, testimonies of informants, because they 'know better' while knowing nothing.

I might as well refer to the professor of astronomy's statements by pointing out that his claims in the article are 'highly questionable'. The professor did not say what exactly is highly doubtful, what I call 'strange'. First of all, I don't really 'trust' astronomers about UFOs, probably because for decades they felt it was beneath their dignity to conduct such research. Astronomers are good at studying stars and peeking through a telescope, but not at studying UFOs that are here in the air and not far out in space. One astronomer once publicly raved that UFOs appear only in the USA and are never seen by pilots, and another that the higher the quality of the testimony, the greater the probability that the unknown sighting will be explained. Such nonsense has been exposed by research by Professor Peter Sturrock, Special Report No. 14 of the Blue Book Project, and arbitrary testimonies of trained pilots. However, as we know, the intellectual cream for years raved about UFOs, and then no one confronts them or ridicule them because an 'astronomer' or 'physicist' could not be uninformed on this topic and could not spread misinformation.

At this point, it would be appropriate to ask who, then, Professor Jewitt 'trusts' more in the matter of UFO research than the military aviation equipped with ultra-modern fighters, the best-trained observers and modern recording equipment, including infrared? It is 'highly doubtful' that we will ever find out.

Finally, let's return to Kirkpatrick and Loeb. Well, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick has been appointed as the new head of AARO's UFO office. Sean Kirkpatrick has never spoken about UFOs before, so it's not known how much he really knows about the subject. It is worth noting that he enlisted the help of Professor Avi Loeb, whom he apparently deemed competent to write the paper together. Here you can add Professor Loeb's fixation on the interstellar object Oumuamua that appeared in our solar system in 2017. Loeb thought it might be an alien ship. As we can see, the Politico article gave a picture of just this object. The media has been returning to this story for years, showing that journalists are lost like children in a fog. They often pay more attention to this Oumuamua object than to the hundreds of UFO sightings on Earth where we have recordings, photos, and testimonies of trained pilots. Oumuamua has as much in common with UFO sightings on Earth as a chair with an electric chair. And yet Professor Loeb is trying to show that perhaps aliens would send a mothership to Earth, which could be Oumuamua. Tic Tac Incident of 2004? Let's forget it because that was 13 years before Oumuamua.

Through a bill signed by Joe Biden, the AARO office reviews historical UFO incidents since 1945. The bill also exempts so-called 'whistleblowers', i.e. whistleblowers, informers, keeping the secrecy clause. Such individuals, who used to run the Pentagon's secret UFO programs and beyond, can now give information to Kirkpatrick without fear of breaking the law and further consequences. And interestingly, these people actually flock to Kirkpatrick giving him detailed information about what they saw or what they were working on. Officially, we already know that the testimonies were given by the military who saw UFOs near nuclear bases, as well as during military tests or ordinary flights. Unofficially, according to multiple sources, more than 3 people have passed information to Kirkpatrick that they were working on a secret "UFO disaster recovery" program. As unbelievable as it sounds, there have been a whole bunch of people in the US government for years who repeat like a mantra that the US has recovered some kind of 'extraterrestrial technology'. By the way, let's remember that most people have no idea about UFO recordings, research, or reports, so it would be a 'big exaggeration' to say that the US would additionally recover extraterrestrial technology.

What then happened? Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, who now hears such first-hand testimony, must be quite shocked. He doesn't quite know what to make of it all as he listens to the testimonies of pilots, military men, officers and officials about out-of-this-world vehicles. So she goes for advice to the eminent professor Avi Loeb, who pointed out a few years ago that Omuamua could be an interstellar ship. Avi Loeb was also open to the idea that the latest UFO sightings could also involve alien vehicles. Together, they wrote a paper that established the physical limitations of UFOs. It is likely that Avi Loeb himself wrote the entire work, but Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick also signed the work. The work is not perfect because it assumes too much about how UFOs can move and what propulsion they use. However, this is another milestone ahead. Why?

Well, because now the media, various Internet portals, can reprint articles about the fact that here and even the 'head of the Pentagon UFO office' claims that some UFOs may be alien probes. Then uninformed average bread eaters read this type of revelation and do not really know what to do with all this. Some don't even know all the UFO stories from recent years. Suddenly they fire up the internet and seeing such a header there is a problem. Such behavior is somewhat funny - you yourself have certainly seen the situation where someone suddenly sees such an article and is surprised that how come UFOs are alien ships? That we now live in such a time that even UFOs can be extraterrestrial? Well, no, because an extraterrestrial explanation for UFOs is a hypothesis that was proposed as early as 1947, and some Pentagon officials advocated it as early as 1948. However, as we know, the later 'Robertson Team' employed by the CIA issued a recommendation to downplay UFO reports through media centers. The average bread eaters themselves are also not driven by curiosity and usually rely on what journalists tell them. And if they kept silent or downplayed the reports, there was clearly nothing interesting about it. And when an article about UFOs suddenly appears, there is also cognitive dissonance.

In the coming days, Sean Kirkpatrick is to be questioned by the U.S. Senate Committee on UFOs. It is not known what he will tell them then, but it is known that when this happens once again there will appear a flood of articles about the fact that there is an official hearing about UFOs. The open question remains whether the media reports on this subject will be meticulously scrutinizing every nuance, or whether it is usually only superficial because there are supposedly more important topics, such as celebrities. Well, this open question is not open at all, because the answer is obvious. Accurately presenting all UFO information seems out of reach.