By my friend Michael Goodspeed:
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialr ... santa.html
Mission For ET: Kill Santa
2005 12 25
By Michael Goodspeed | Thunderbolts.info
"Sleigh of Santa Claus UFO 11 October 1998" (Raul took this very unique picture in the north area of Monterrey, Mexico. His wife, Linda, told him that she believes this light cluster looks like the sleigh of Santa Claus! We concur, Mrs. Garza!)
Image and comment from: iwasabducted.com
Everyone who has explored the UFO phenomenon has at some point been treated to the infamous "Santa Claus" analogy. Self-styled "skeptics" invoke it religiously (no pun intended) in discussions with anyone who believes there might actually be some evidence of alien visitation on planet Earth.
"If you believe that a UFO crashed in Roswell, then I'm sure Santa will leave some nice presents under your Christmas tree." Any number of variations of this analogy (unicorns, leprechauns, bogeymen, etc.) are used to dismiss on a priori grounds all phenomena that rely heavily on anecdotal evidence and/or human testimony.
The problem with the analogy is that it is pure fabrication. Yes, it is true that no empirical PROOF exists ether of aliens or of Santa (at least none that I know of), but only the willfully ignorant, the deliberately dishonest, or the cataclysmically stupid would ever claim that evidence of ET is no better than evidence of Santa.
How many military personnel have come forward with eyewitness accounts of Santa? None that I know of, but DOZENS have offered testimony of UFO sightings, sometimes with corroborating physical evidence. In the Rendlesham incident from 1980 (the so-called "British Roswell"), numerous USAF personnel witnessed UFOs and other "unearthly phenomena" that they could not explain. The servicemen also reportedly found "three radioactive depressions" in the ground where the anomalous objects had been sighted. (Incidentally, a couple of years ago, the BBC claimed to have "exposed" Rendlesham as a "hoax," based on the testimony of a single former USAF Security Policeman named Kevin Conde. It is Conde's claim that the alleged "mysterious lights" (the reportedly HOVERING mysterious lights) witnessed by other personnel were actually the "flashing lights" of his patrol car. One wonders why the BBC would unquestioningly accept Conde's anecdotal testimony, particularly when he is badly outnumbered by witnesses who believe they saw something unexplainable, including the higher ranked officer Lt. Col. Charles Halt. The BBC "report" (i.e. hatchet job):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/ser ... ufos.shtml)
In 2004, the Mexican Department of Defense acknowledged the presence of UFOs in Mexico. In a meeting with controversial journalist Jaime Maussan, Secretary of Defense General Clemente Vega Garcia revealed details of a "high level incident" in which several pilots were "buzzed" by eleven unknown objects, which were filmed and tracked by the crafts' RADAR and other equipment. Full story:
(Note: Self-styled skeptics have attempted to attribute this event to mundane factors, from "ball lightning" to "platform burn-off flares". Ahem....Story:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archive ... 07-24.html)
Related to this, a fairly comprehensive list of UFO events with corroborating Radar-Visual can be viewed here:
In addition to the numerous UFO encounters reported by military personnel, there have been many sightings by highly credible, trained observers, including police officers (and I don't know of ANY credible witnesses that have reported a Santa Claus sighting). In April 2001, in Waynesville, Ohio, multiple civilians and law enforcement officers reported disc-like objects hovering in the night sky and moving in unconventional manners over the course of 24 hours. As UFO investigator Kenny Young pointed out in his extensive report on the sightings, officers "repeatedly affirm(ed) a cogent distinction between the suspect UFOs and routine stars and airplanes."
On the first evening of the Ohio sightings, county dispatchers contacted local flight control facilities, all of whom reported that no conventional aircraft were in the vicinity of the UFOs. (Young's full report, as well as transcripts of police/dispatch communications, can be read at: http://www.rense.com/general10/inc.htm. )
And of course, for decades, citizens all across the globe have witnessed, filmed, and photographed objects that seemingly cannot be explained in conventional terms (and ask yourself, how many compelling images have you seen of Santa and his reindeer?). These include MASS sightings by hundreds or even thousands of eyewitness, offering unprompted testimony independently of one another. Some of these incidents are supported by video and/or photographic evidence, including:
A massive "fleet" of UFOs filmed over Guadalajara, Mexico in 2004:
In Xalapa, Mexico, in June of 2005, a "fleet" of "at least fourteen unknown objects", which were witnessed by "Xalapa's governor, Fidel Herrera Beltran, members of his staff, many officers of the Xalapa police department, newspapers and television reporters"... http://www.rense.com/general66/massive.htm
The Phoenix Lights event of 1997:
The famous Battle of Los Angeles from 1942:
And what of the abduction phenomenon, and the thousands of individuals who have reported direct encounters with alien beings? The skeptics' position on this issue was presented virtually unchallenged on Peter Jennings' 2005 ABC documentary, "Seeing is Believing". The agenda of the show was to attribute all purported abductions to undiagnosed "sleep paralysis". The problem with that "explanation" is that it does nothing to explain the vast majority of "abductions", including the famous Betty and Barney Hill and Travis Walton cases.
In June of 2005, at the Seattle Chat Club's UFO conference, I had the pleasure to engage in 30 minutes of informal Q and A with abduction researcher Budd Hopkins. Budd told me that the ABC special "brutally omitted" the most relevant abduction data, including the fact that roughly 80% of the "abductees" he's interviewed were fully conscious when they were purportedly "taken".
It is also interesting that many skeptics try to attribute the entire abduction phenomenon to "pop culture conditioning" -- that is to say, people are "trained" to believe in alien abduction by movies, TV shows, books, etc.. But I've yet to hear of anyone being "abducted" by Dracula, or Freddy Kreuger, or the Wolfman, or Frankenstein's Monster, or King Kong...or for that matter, SANTA CLAUS. I guess the public can only be conditioned to believe in very specific chimeras.
I can go on and on describing the existing body of UFO evidence, but it will not matter to self-styled skeptics, all of whom have "easy answers" to dismiss the phenomenon on a priori grounds. Mass UFO sightings are mass hallucinations -- case closed. UFOs on video and film are either hoaxes or misinterpreted conventional phenomena -- case closed. "Abductions" are caused by sleep paralysis and mass conditioning -- case closed.
The irony here is that members of the scientific "establishment", so revered by the self-styled skeptics, have spent years promoting theories (dark matter, dark energy, string theory) that are totally unsubstantiated by empirical proof. Indeed, a recent article in the NY Times Science section pointed out the irony that "Science and Religion Share Fascination in Things Unseen". (Essay available at: http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html)
I've yet to hear a "skeptic" claim that belief in string theory is comparable to belief in Santa Claus...but why? Is it because string theory is advocated by some really, really smart people? Well, historically, "smart" and highly-accredited people have advocated some unbelievably stupid ideas. Even renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking recently admitted that was he incorrect in his theory that "a black hole swallows everything that falls into it" (Story: http://space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html).
My point here is not that anyone is obliged to believe in aliens or even to explore the matter as an intellectual interest. But it is a cowardly and lightweight tactic to reduce one's opponent to a "straw man" by deliberately misrepresenting and/or ignoring evidence that supports his viewpoint. And self-styled skeptics do this habitually.
ET, if you are reading this, I ask that you give me just one present this Christmas Eve: if you should see the red, rotund target of Santa's belly in your sights, focus your ray gun and fire at will. Blast Santa's guts into a thousand streaming trails of gristle and gore. Or at the very least, treat the jolly oaf to an exceptionally violent probing. Because frankly, ET, your name and Santa's should never be mentioned in the same breath. You deserve better -- at least a LITTLE.
I stated above that the theories of "dark matter" and "dark energy" are not substantiated by empirical proof. Of course, many astronomers and mathematicians will say that such proof exists. For some elaboration, I think the following comments by Electric Universe theorist Louis Hissink might be helpful:
Some scientists have discovered that existing scientific explanations are often incomplete or so complex with ad-hoc adjustments that physical reality is often replaced with the mathematical imaginative world of pure academic speculation ? a clear case of seeing what we believe. Theory states we must have black holes, and lo', there is one.
Except no one can see it.
Modern Astronomy uses Newtonian gravitation to explain planetary motion but because of gravity's inability to explain the observed motion of galaxies, esoteric concepts like "black holes" or "dark matter" have to be invented to allow gravity to work. It never occurs to the scientists that their theory of gravity might be the problem.... (Source:
http://lhcrazyworld.blogspot.com/2005_1 ... chive.html)
For further elaboration on why the theories of "dark matter" and "black holes" are not necessary and don't work, see:
Exposing The Myth of Dark Matter: http://www.rense.com/general63/cone.htm
Things That Are Impossible: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... ssible.htm
I think my statement regarding Budd Hopkins' research (80% of abductees were "fully conscious when they were taken") is not semantically correct. I believe it was Budd's statement that roughly 80% of abductees are not ASLEEP, or even in BED, at the time of their experience. But that is not to stay they are conscious DURING the experience. According to Budd, the majority of abductees experience "missing time" in the course of their waking lives, necessitating the controversial "memory retrieval" through thypnosis. Again, if I've misstated Budd's position in any way, I would appreciate a correction.
Article from recieved from Michael Goodspeed