New incursions by unknown flying objects over protected facilities in Sweden

The geopolitical situation with the Russian-Ukraine war and Sweden's Nato membership makes it challenging to decipher the nature of the unidentified flying objects.

Two years ago, simultaneous incursions occurred by unidentified flying objects over at least three Swedish nuclear facilities. A similar simultaneous incursion by unidentified flying objects happened on the 9th of March 2024 in the south of Sweden.

What happened on the 9th of March 2024 and where?

According to the Swedish newspaper, Sydsvenskan, “several drones have been observed during the evening and night to Saturday on several locations in Skane” (“Skåne” is the most south region of Sweden). The news media company, TV4 Nyheterna, reports that “according to information given to TV4 Nyheterna, several big drones have been observed on several locations in Skane”. Some of those locations were the closed nuclear facility Barsebäck (closed since 2005 and today a protected facility), and Malmö Airport (Malmö is the biggest city in the south of Sweden, and the third biggest in Sweden). Other locations were the “drones” — or UFOs — were observed was in Svedala and Ystad (see the map below).

Several big “drones” were observed in several locations in the most south region of Sweden on the evening of the 8th of March and night to the 9th of March 2024. Most notable of those locations are the closed nuclear facility Barsebäck and Malmö Airport.

Both the Sydsvenskan and TV4 Nyheterna report that the police and defence department are working together with the investigation of the simultaneous incursions by several “big drones” over protected facilities/areas like Barsebäck and Malmö Airport. A spokesperson for the police of Region South, Sara Andersson, tells the Sydsvenskan that these kinds of simultaneous observations and incursions are “relatively unusual”.

Some further information is given by the same spokesperson for the police of Region South to the public news service channel, SVT Nyheter: “We are going to begin with analysing the material we have recorded and see what that analysis gives us.” In the same article by STV Nyheter, an academic at the college of the defence department, states that the recent incursions are likely connected to Sweden’s membership in Nato.

Similarities and differences between the incursions in 2022 and 2024

A rough overview of some of the similarities and differences between the incursions in January 2022 and March 2024 can be described as follows, and beginning with the similarities:

Both years involve multiple unidentified flying objects — “big drones” — simultaneously flying over civilian and protected facilities/areas (nuclear facilities, airport). For both years, it seems like the UFOs or the “big drones” either want to be detected or do not care if detected. For both years, the UFOs are flying over civilian facilities and areas rather than military ones. In both years, the simultaneous incursions or fly overs occurred during a tumultuous geopolitical situation or development. Both years, the incursions happened close to large bodies of water. Also, there is recorded material (footage) of some of the UFOs or drones from both years.

The main difference between the incursions in 2022 and 2024 is the geographical one. In January 2022, the simultaneous incursions occurred over a large geographical area (south of Sweden, on the east and west coast) compared to March 2024 (restricted to a relatively small area on the south coast of Sweden). Another difference is that the media reporting of the incursions is even more scarce this year than in 2022. A third, and perhaps an important, difference is that this year’s incursions involved a civilian airport.

What conclusions can we infer from the incursions of 2022 and 2024?

I am afraid we cannot draw any conclusions with a high degree of certainty. The publicly available information is too thin, incomplete. Which makes any inferences or interpretations of the nature and intent of the UFOs or “big drones” fraught with uncertainties and risk of errors. You could make an equally reasonable case for the incursions of 2022 and 2024 being caused by “genuine” UFOs or by a foreign military power. The characteristics of the incursions in 2022 and 2024 fit both explanations. Of course, some high-quality evidence — for instance, the “recorded material” — could at least eliminate one or the other explanation.

Update, 10th of March

During the Saturday evening on the 9th of March, the police got calls for more sightings of unknown flying objects in the area around the closed nuclear facility, Barsebäck, according to the Swedish newspaper, Expressen. Witnesses are telling about fighter jets circling the area (that is, seeking the unknown flying objects, and also showing military presence and capability). What I find strange and annoying with both the articles from earlier today (above) and this recent one, is the lack of reporting of the witnesses’ perception of the objects. How would the witnesses describe the unknown flying objects? For example, did the objects make any sound or not?

Regardless of who is the behind the “big drones” or UFOs, they seem sure of not getting caught and the intention seems to be “poke the hornet’s nest and study the effects”.

Take care

J T

Debunkers and (blind) believers of the UFO phenomenon: what´s the difference?

The text below is one of my first articles on the UFO issue on Medium.com (the article was first published on 12th September, 2018). I republish the article on this blog, because I think its content, or message, is 1) still relevant, and 2) can apply to other subjects, issues, etc. 

The main point of the article below is that a clearer understanding of the UFO phenomenon, requires both an intellectual and an ethical virtue (which the philosopher Miranda Fricker calls "epistemic justice"). The intellectual virtue pertains to a sensitivity to relevant information in a situation, discussion, argument, and so on. But that is not sufficient for social interactions. You need to combine the intellectual virtue with a respect for and curiosity of the human before you. 

Internalising and putting into action the idea of "epistemic justice" in different social situations is a complex task. But when done well -- or even good enough -- the application of both intellectual and ethical virtues in discussions about different aspects of the UFO issue, can raise the quality of our understanding about the subject in question and about ourselves. Now to the article:

Debunkers and believers of the UFO phenomenon: What is the difference?

Or how opposing factions in the ufo-community could relate to each other in a way that furthers everyone's understanding of the UFO issue.

I think there is a vital distinction between being a sound skeptic of the UFO phenomena and an unsound skeptic. The latter mindset, you will find in individuals called “debunkers”. What do I mean by an “unsound skeptic” or a “debunker”? In a general sense, I am referring to individuals who seem to have a stable pattern of being unable or unwilling to relate to other people’s perspectives and change their opinion in the face of facts to the contrary. To be fair, that definition can fit us all from time to time, but the key phrase above is “a stable pattern” of rigid cognition and close-mindedness.

Photo by Emiliano Bar on Unsplash

How can you have an open and reciprocal discourse on the UFO phenomena with a debunker or a blind believer (a similar stable pattern of rigid cognition and close-mindedness, but in the opposite direction) in UFOs? In the following, we will explore one viable approach that might increase the chance of a constructive conversation with a debunker or a blind believer of the UFO phenomena. That approach is about validating and respecting the human behind the rigid thinking (ethical virtue) as much as evaluating what is being said (intellectual virtue). I hope and think that the approach will be intelligible along the way, since this text does not have an obvious structure.

But first, we have to examine another distinction, specifically the crucial difference between being a blind believer of the UFO phenomena and, what I call, a clear-eyed believer. As we shall see, being a sound skeptic and a clear-eyed believer is essentially the same, and they are the opposite of being a debunker or blind believer. 

The important thing to keep in mind is that regardless of being a sound/unsound skeptic or clear-eyed/blind believer, we are all human beings, perceiving shadows on Plato’s cave wall.

Photo by Dany Fly on Unsplash

How do you recognise a sound skeptic (clear-eyed believer) and differentiate that mindset from an unsound skeptic (blind believer)? Let me borrow a definition from the astronomer, Bernard Haisch, on being a (sound) skeptic:

Skeptic — One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.(https://sites.google.com/view/ufoskepticorg/home)

Not everyone interested in the truth of the UFO phenomena has an academic background or is familiar with the scientific method. Nor is it necessary for internalising the mindset of a sound skeptic or a clear-eyed believer. Everyone can learn and practice how to “show willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs…”

I know, showing a willingness and consider alternative views and opinions without prejudice based on prior beliefs can be a hard challenge to manifest in actions. I fail at it more often than I am likely aware of. Nonetheless, I think it is crucial to our pursuit of the truth of the UFO phenomena, that all of us try to be open-minded to opinions and perspectives that differ from our own.

To be open-minded and show willingness to consider alternative explanations does not mean that you have to agree with or let yourself be persuaded by an alternative view.

Believe it or not, we humans can hold two distinct lines of thoughts in our head simultaneously and entertain them both without agreeing with any of them. A claim allegedly made by the philosopher Aristotle.

Humans are complex. All of us have a past and experiences that shaped the way we view ourselves, reality, and other people. What you perceive as interesting, valuable, meaningful, threatening, etc., in your surroundings is a complex interaction between your genetic disposition and the environment (or contextual factors in any situation and time).

So, the first requirement in becoming a sound skeptic is self-awareness: what assumptions and beliefs do I hold, where do they come from (up bringing, education, etc.), how do they direct my perception, and influence my worldview, values, and behaviour?

People can, and do, change their worldview, values, etc., and sometimes in profound ways. What I have discovered through my work, which is also backed up by the scientific literature (psychology, social psychology, sociology, etc.), is that the quality of the relationship between two individuals is the most salient factor for a positive or desired change to occur in one or both of the individuals. How? It comes down to curiosity, courage, humility, and imagination.

Photo by kyler trautner on Unsplash

First, I cannot change another person’s viewpoint and opinion on a topic with (only) facts and logic. We humans do not work that way. Emotions are, for evolutionary reasons, stronger and more persuasive than reason and rationality.

But if emotions often override facts and logic, how is it even possible to practise “dispassionate reasoning?” It is hard to do and even scientists themselves fail at it.

So maybe to convince or persuade with facts is the wrong tactic? What would happen in the conversation if I showed a genuine interest in the human in front of me, and tried to understand where she or he was coming from?

What would happen if I attempted to, for a moment, walk around in the other person’s world and see it from their unique perspective, without confusing the other person’s world and perspective with my own?

Would that be threatening to you? If yes, ask yourself “why?” If no, why not try it?

Remember that Bernard Haisch’s definition of a sound skeptic is an ideal. As I have already said, it is easier said than done to be and behave as a sound skeptic consistently. It is human to fail. The important thing is to keep trying and learning from the mistakes along the way (that is how your self-awareness widens and deepens).

I am a believer. Hopefully, what I call a clear-eyed believer — the same as a sound skeptic — in the reality of the UFO phenomena. I am also very aware of the fact that what I do not know is always going to be so much greater than what I know. That is both frustrating and exciting. Exciting, because it means there is so much more for me to explore, discover, and learn.

However, it does not mean that my lack of knowledge and understanding gives me the right to fill that void with whatever I wish or believe to be true.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The very least I can do, is to clarify to myself and others what I fill that void with, and make a clear distinction to myself and others between what I believe, wish, assume, and what I with high certainty and integrity can say that I know. Regarding the UFO phenomena, the volume of what we do not know is certainly far much greater than the volume of what we can say that we know. I believe that will always be the case regarding our knowledge and understanding of the UFO phenomena.

The quote below by Bernard Haisch is taken from the same website as the first quote above. Something for all of us to keep in mind and to practice:

To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your homework!

What I would like to add to the two quotes from Haisch, and to further explain my suggested approach to a more constructive interaction between opposing factions in the UFO community, is the following.

Besides looking at the evidence, engage in dispassionate reasoning, show willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, you also have to see the human who is expressing an opinion, presenting an argument, and so on.

To come closer to the truth, or get a clearer and more accurate picture of an issue, you have to not only understand a person’s reasoning (or lack thereof), but also the person behind the reasoning (or lack thereof). Why does this person think as he or she does? What experiences have shaped this person’s worldview? What values and fears lie behind the person’s perspective on an issue? And how has the person acquired those values, beliefs, fears, etc.?

In order to get to know a person, to better understand where they are coming from, you have to be curious, humble and patient. Also, you need to have some courage to ask questions that address a person’s values, dreams, fears, and hopes. And you need to have the willingness to share some of your own. Most of all, you need to use your imagination to walk around in another person’s world, and, for a moment, perceive reality through their eyes.

By that approach, we lower the risk of destructive/disrespectful opposition, and of pride and vanity obscuring the truth. By showing a willingness to both consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs (intellectual virtue), and see the human in a nonjudgmental way (ethical virtue), we increase the motivation of both parties focusing on and seeking the unbiased truth.

Why is the aforementioned important?

First, because everyone wants to be seen and listened to as a dignified and capable human. It is that simple, but also very easy to forget.

Second, the search for the truth of, in this case, the UFO phenomena, is both an individual and a social/collective process. We all have to make our individual effort to make up our respective minds of what to think or not about the different aspects of the UFO phenomena. But no single individual can reach the truth, or get a more clear and accurate picture of “the Phenomena”, all by themselves. For that, we need other people. We need each other. We need a plurality of perspectives.

Third, since clearer answers to and a deeper understanding of the UFO phenomena require a collective effort, we need more collaboration and respectful disagreement than division and affective polarisation. That can only be achieved by recognising each other’s dignity and competence as human beings (ethical virtue).

Remember, you can seldom convince a debunker or a blind believer with logic and facts alone. No matter the quality and quantity of the evidence you present, no matter how nuanced and grounded you present the facts, the debunker/blind believer will most times not consider the evidence/facts/argument in an open-minded manner.

Thus, make a choice. You can try to non judgementally listen to and understand the human with an opposing or different opinion than your own. Perhaps the two of you can have a meaningful and respectful interaction despite detrimental opposite opinions? It is plausible.

If meaningful interaction is not possible, then to keep your self-respect and peace of mind, end the interaction politely. Why waste your valuable time and energy on futile arguing and feeling frustrated?

Instead, learn and teach in social contexts where the search for the truth is the highest goal and the common ground we share as imperfect humans is most valuable.

Take care

J T

Less official UFO transparency confirmed?

[Originally published on Medium.com on September 11, 2022]

Unfortunately, my prediction of less transparency by the U.S. Navy on the UFO issue seems to come true. But negative outcomes can point to other possibilities.

On September 8, 2022, the Black Vault published the article “U.S. Navy says ALL UAP/UFO are classified and exempt from release.” In the article, John Greenewald describes a two and half year long FOIA effort to get the U. S. Navy to release all of its videos designated with UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or more commonly known as Unidentified Flying Objects, UFOs).

The response Greenewald received from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations was:

The UAP Task Force has responded back to DNS-36 and have stated that the requested videos contain sensitive information pertaining to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and are classified and are exempt from disclosure in their entirety under exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(1) in accordance with Executive Order 13526 and the UAP Security Classification Guide…

And furthermore:

The release of this information will harm national security as it may provide adversaries valuable information regarding Department of Defense/Navy operations, vulnerabilities, and/or capabilities. No portions of the videos can be segregated for release.

After listening to the Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence (ONI), Scott W. Bray, at the C3 subcommittee hearing on UAP/UFOs in May 2022, I was worried that the ONI had emulated the “Project Blue Book”-attitude toward transparency on the UFO issue. That is, little or no transparency at all.

The UFO phenomena: from stigma to charisma?

One of the founding fathers of sociology, Max Weber, meant that charisma has been the great revolutionary force in history. Charismatic movements often begin in the fringes of society. Is the status of the UFO phenomena transforming from stigma to a charismatic subject with the potential to revolutionise human society?

Adinkra symbol of greatness, charisma, and leadership.

In the following, we will look at Max Weber’s (1864–1920) view on charismatic authority and how the concept might relate to the UFO phenomena and the implications of greater official transparency on the UFO issue. Or as UFO or UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena) are re-labeled in the Fiscal Year 2023 Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) (S. 4503), unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena (the UFO-related material is on pp. 87–117 in the PDF-version of S. 4503).

We will return to the IAA, because the language in the bill might very well transform the stigmatized UFO subject into a charismatic and revolutionary force in history. The truth about the UFO issue will eventually be known to the world. However, the central question is how the people will perceive the truth and the consequences of society's cohesion of that perception. 

But first, let us look at Weber’s concept of charisma/charismatic authority and how it transfers to the UFO issue and its existential implications (perhaps needless to mention, but Weber did not discuss UFOs in his body of work).

Some challenges to raise global awareness of the UFO issue

Usually, awareness rising campaigns targets a specific audience. However, regarding the UFO issue, the goal is to raise the awareness of the world’s population and protect people’s mental wellbeing. What are some challenges?

Photo by jean wimmerlin on Unsplash

There are many strategies and methods you could use to raise the awareness of the world’s population about the reality of the UFO phenomenon and its existential implications. This article will not go into the “how”, but outline some challenges to raise people’s awareness and start having a truly global conversation about the UFO issue. If you have been paying attention to the UFO issue the last five years, then you know the answer to why we need a global conversation is that the UFO phenomenon is real. That fact entails that someone- or something unknown is visiting earth (no, I am not making a logical fallacy).

In a previous article, I argued that a gradual strengthening of a sense of coherence is necessary to increase people’s ability to comprehend, cope with, and make information about the UFO issue and its existential implications meaningful. In the end, the gradual strengthening would likely increase people’s trust in each other, both within and between societies (because the UFO issue would act as a mirror and make us reflect about what really matters in life). One central point with a gradual strengthening of a sense of coherence (SOC) is to decrease anxiety and depression on an individual level and polarization on a societal level. In short, to protect and/or maintain people’s mental and emotional wellbeing.

Can the UFO issue unite the world?

 In large parts of the world, there is conflict and polarization. In the West, more people seem to experience an existential crisis. Could the common goal of understanding the UFO phenomenon and its existential implications increase trust between countries and a sense of meaning among people?

Photo by ANIRUDH on Unsplash

Our current world order is travelling a precarious path. There are many variables associated with the current tensions and divisions in the world. In this article, however, my claim is that the most relevant variable to address is the lack of trust within and between societies. This general lack of trust has several explanations, but I believe the main underlying reason is that more people experience a low sense of coherence (coined by medical sociologist Aaron Antonovsky). The first half of this article describes Antonovsky’s concept of a sense of coherence (SOC) and the second half outlines how SOC relates to the UFO issue.

Sense of coherence (SOC) comprises three elements: comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Antonovsky defined the three elements as:

… a global orientation that expresses the extent to which one has a pervasive, enduring though dynamic feeling of confidence that (1) the stimuli from one’s internal and external environments in the course of living are structured, predictable, and explicable; (2) the resources are available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli; and (3) these demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement. (Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health. How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987, p. 19)

Historical congressional hearing on UFOs point to less transparency in the future

The headline is referring to the open session of the congressional hearings on unidentified aerial phenomena, or UFOs, held on May 17, 2022. Hopefully, the open hearing was the first of many to come. Otherwise, greater official transparency on the UFO issue may remain a dream.

"Open C3 Subcommittee Hearing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." Duration: approx. 90 min.

Introduction

The above link takes you to the “Open C3 Subcommittee Hearing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” that took place on May 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. ET (credit for the video to the House Intelligence). The purpose of this article is to make some comments on selected parts from the public hearing on the UFO issue. The selected parts mainly relate to the question of more or less official transparency in the future. For a full understanding of what the congressional representatives asked, and the witnesses answered in the public hearing, you should carefully listen to the open hearing in its entirety (the link above).

For readers unfamiliar with the events of the last three to four years that have led up to the public hearing on May 17, 2022, I refer you to my previous Medium-articles (from 2018 and onward). However, the historical background goes back to at least 1947. You can understand the open hearing without the historical knowledge of the UFO phenomenon (or phenomena), but probably not understand all the implications of the witnesses' answers. One reason I bring up the crucial historical aspect of UFOs is because the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community (IC) do not seem to think the historical aspect is crucial for further our understanding of the UFO phenomenon. I will come back to the DoD’s and IC’s perspective on the historical aspect further down.

What were the themes of the public hearing?

The witnesses referred to above were the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)), Mr Ronald Moultrie, and Deputy Director of Navy Intelligence (ONI), Mr Scott W. Bray. Mr André Carson, Counterproliferation Subcommittee, chaired the open hearing, which was a bipartisan effort by representatives from The House Intelligence Counterterrorism, and Counterintelligence.

A scientist to direct the Pentagon UFO office

According to researcher Mr Douglas Dean Johnson, a physicist will be the director of the recently formed UFO/UAP office, Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG). If accurate, that may have positive implications for further our understanding of UFOs/UAP. 

First note that Mr Johnson, in his article — which I highly recommend you to read — explicitly says that “The Pentagon has not confirmed” that Sean Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., is selected as the director of AOIMSG. Mr Johnson refers to other sources within the Executive Branch who off the record affirm that Dr Kirkpatrick both applied to be the director and that I have selected him to fill the position. I am familiar with Mr Johnson’s research and writing, so, in this case, I feel confident in referring to an article about the UFO/UAP issue with anonymous sources (which regarding to the UFO topic should raise red flags in 9 out of 10 cases).

Dr Sean Kirkpatrick. Credit.

The main reason for referring to Mr Johnson’s article is to “spread the news”. So again, I recommend you to click on the link above and read his article. I will not give the bullet points here.

What I will do, however, is to make some short comments on the decision of the Department of Defense (DoD) to appoint a scientist (a physicist) to direct an elevated UAP office (compared to its predecessors AATIP and UAPTF) and tasked by the U.S. Government (USG) to study the national security threat of UFOs/UAP. People have to realise that the USG takes the UFO issue seriously. The goals, the organizational structure, and the resources of AOIMSG (its extent of authority is unclear) are a sign of that seriousness.

Unknown flying objects over Swedish nuclear plants

[This post is a copied version of my article on Medium.com on January 15, 2022. Therefore, the formatting is off at some places in this post. J. T]

On January 14, 2022, three nuclear facilities in Sweden had simultaneous incursions of unknown flying objects. Reports from Swedish mainstream media are unclear on whether it was drones or something else.

Five days after my article about the need for the European Union to address the UFO and nuclear-weapons connection, incursions of unknown flying objects over three civilian nuclear facilities in Sweden (see map below) were major news in Swedish mainstream media (obviously, there is no connection between the incursions in question and my previous article).

In what follows, I will first summarize the story as reported by some Swedish news outlets, and then make some comments about the reported story. Here you can find a good coverage of the story by The Drive/The Warzone.

The story: drones or something else?

The details of the incursions are still scarce, unclear, and sometimes contradictory in the Swedish news. But the general story seems to be as follows:

Swedish public service television (SVT) report on January 15 that a guard at Forsmark nuclear plant on Friday 14, 2022, at 8:20 P.M. local time, alarmed about a “larger drone” that could “withstand strong winds”. The guard saw the larger drone “fly in over” the Forsmark nuclear plant. When a police patrol arrived to the nuclear plant, they first sighted the larger drone at 8:51 P.M. The police searched the larger drone with a helicopter, but “lost contact with the drone” at 10:10 P.M. According to SVT, the police had “not found any indications of the drone landing inside the protected area of the nuclear plant or that it dropped any objects from the air” (the article by SVT was latest updated at 2:54 P.M., January 15).

Forsmark nuclear plant (right, at the top) is a final repository for radioactive waste. Oskarshamn's nuclear plant had a drone incursion at the same time as Forsmark. Ringhals nuclear plant (left, at the top) also seem to have had a drone incursion at the same time (Friday 14, around 7:00–8:00 P.M.), but the reports are more uncertain than in the two other cases. The distance between Oskarshamn and Forsmark is approximately 475 kilometers (km), and between Ringhals and Oskarshamn approximately 300 km.


Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, report that personnel at Oskarshamn’s nuclear plant, at 7:00 P.M. alarmed about “something that seemed to be a drone flying over the nuclear plant-area”. Aftonbladet also reports that after 9:00 P.M. on Friday 14, guards at Ringhals nuclear plant alarmed the police “after hearing something that sounded like a drone flying over the area”. But after searching for the flying object with a helicopter with no results, the police state that “it is not possible to confirm whether the object was a drone”. Also, the police made a search on the nuclear plant in the south, Barsebäck (left, at the bottom in the map above), after “an eventual sighting of a drone had been made by the personnel” at the nuclear plant. [The formatting is off; it should be a normal paragraph. J. T]

My comments on the story

Even for a Swedish reader, it is hard to get a clear sense of what has happened, when, where, and so on. However, it is crystal clear that more than one incursion of an unknown flying object has occurred in more than one nuclear plant at approximately the same time. The incursion at Forsmark nuclear plant seems to have been the most severe, and the “larger drone” was sighted by people at the nuclear plant (at least one guard) and by several police officers. Whether the helicopter pilot observed the larger done before the police lost contact with it is unclear in the reporting. Neither is there any information on whether military or civilian radar picked up any signals (unlikely if the drone/object never operated on higher altitudes).

The larger drone operating over Forsmark could withstand strong winds. So how strong were the winds at Forsmark on Friday 14, around 8:00 P.M.? I have found no weather data on Forsmark on that day and time-frame. The closest weather station, run by Sweden's meteorological and hydrological institute (SMHI), I found was on an island (Örskär) outside the coast of where Forsmark nuclear plant is located. That weather station recorded winds from 16, 0 meter per second (m/s) to 16, 7 m/s between 6:00 and 9:00 P.M. Between 10:00 P.M. and midnight the weather station recorded winds from 11, 3 m/s to 14, 3 m/s. Since the weather station is more exposed to the winds from the Bothnian Sea than Forsmark nuclear plant, it is likely that the wind strength was less in the area that the larger drone operated. A reasonable estimate of the wind strength at Forsmark nuclear plant on Friday 14, and at the time frame of 8:00 to 10:00 P.M., is between 10, 8 and 13, 8 m/s (that corresponds to 39–49 kilometer per hour (km/h) according to SMHI).

Aerial photo of Forsmark nuclear plant. Credit: visitforsmark.se.

If 10, 8 to 13, 8 m/s is a reasonable estimate of the wind strength, then whatever the object was, it had to have been quite robust. For people who are not familiar with the Swedish climate, I can say that at this time of the year the sun set around 5:30 P.M. at the location of Forsmark nuclear plant. So it was dark outside when the guard at Forsmark sighted (at 8:00 P.M.) the larger drone and when the police searched for it with a helicopter (the search lasted for approx. one hour and ended at 10:10 P.M.). 

Besides the darkness, and perhaps the wind, the visibility seems to have been good in the evening at Forsmark on January 14. In no news reports have I found any details of what people observed (shapes, lights, sound, flight characteristics, etc.) on the different locations of the incursions.

Thus, the data is inadequate (scant and unclear). You cannot draw any certain conclusions about what the unknown flying objects are or are not. Not even in the “strongest” case of Forsmark nuclear plant.

But there are two strange circumstances in this Swedish “drones at nuclear plants” story. The first is, of course, that several nuclear facilities had incursions on the same day and approximately at the same time: the police have confirmed incursions at Forsmark and Oskarshamn’s nuclear plant. Ringhals nuclear plant seems to have had some kind of drone incident, but here the reports are even more scant.

There is, however, another circumstance that I have not mentioned above. During this second week of January, the Swedish Armed Forces has mobilised on the island, Gotland (see map below), because of increased Russian military activity in the area (in the air, sea, and on mainland, for instance, Kaliningrad). Put this situation in a broader geopolitical context of deteriorating relations between Nato and Russia (due to, for instance, Russia’s presence in Ukraine).

The pin shows the island, Gotland. Oskarshamn’s nuclear plant is approximately 120 km southwest of Gotland. Forsmark nuclear plant is between Stockholm and Gävle.

Above mentioned, makes me think that the “UFOs” over Swedish nuclear plants may very well be a coordinated military operation by Russia. Or is the explanation that some Swedish drone-enthusiasts came up with a bold (or foolish) plan (prank) that they could not resist executing? Or is the Swedish military testing its drones and/or the security at the nuclear plants in question? In any case, at the moment, “the larger drone” and the other sighted “drones”, are technically Unidentified Flying Objects or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) (according to me; neither the Swedish police nor the military have used the terms UFO or UAP).

But I believe the most probable explanation to the “UFO” incursions over Swedish nuclear plants is terrestrial. That is, human activity is likely the best explanation of the incursions on January 14, 2022. Nonetheless, it is a remarkable story, and I am not aware of anything similar being reported in Swedish mainstream media (Forsmark has had several drone incidents before, but I am not aware of reports of incidents/incursions on several nuclear plants at the same time).

What remains to be seen is whether the Swedish public will know the whole story and a truthful explanation of what flew over and around several Swedish nuclear plants on January 14, 2022. A safe bet is that we will not. I can only hope that some Swedish investigative journalist will prove us wrong.

Take care!

J. T

The European Union needs to adress the UFO issue

Night lights of Europe. Credit: NASA (CC BY 2.0).

Since December 2017, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) have gone from ridicule to a matter of national security in the USA. In Europe, the silence in mainstream media and politics is universal. 

The magnitude of attention to the UFO issue in the USA is remarkable compared to Europe. The difference in attention is especially stark in the political domain: no official representative of the European Union has made any comment on the UFO issue. So why the absence of attention on the UFO issue in Europe, and why does it matter?

Before we can explore the questions raised above, we first have to give a crude overview of what has happened with the UFO issue in the USA since 2017. The overview only shows four major events that helped transition the status of UFOs from a fringe topic to a national security issue in the U.S. Congress.

The five nuclear-weapon nations make a joint statement: a UFO connection?

"Nuclear Explosion Made in a Blender" (CC0 1. 0).

On January 3 2022, the leaders of the five nuclear-weapons nations made a joint statement on preventing nuclear war and avoiding arms races. You can read the joint statement here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/p5-statement-on-preventing-nuclear-war-and-avoiding-arms-races/

Do the joint statement on preventing nuclear war have anything to do with the recent political attention on the UAP issue? I am mainly referring to the political awareness in the US, and specifically to — as of December 2021, passed as law — the amendment of a UAP office within the Department of Defense by U.S Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. 

High Strangeness and Metaphysics

The False Mirror, 1928 - René Magritte.

Introduction

The idea of this post came from a comment on #ufotwitter. The gist of the comment, or reflection, was something to the effect: How can we study such an elusive and strange phenomenon as UFOs/UAP with the scientific method? My interpretation of the comment is that the person implicitly referred to the high strangeness aspect of the UFO phenomenon (-na). The person wondered how the metaphysical assumptions (for instance, "physicalism") of contemporary science can even take seriously phenomena that seem to contradict our concepts of what is real or not, possible or impossible. (The term "physicalism" is defined in sections 1 and 2 after this introduction).

 I use the term "high strangeness" in J. Allen Hynek´s (1910 - 1986) meaning as a qualitative measure of the plausibility of a UFO sighting (roughly, "the more bizarre and absurd, the more plausible"). But I am using the term high strangeness in a broader sense, including phenomena manifesting at Skinwalker Ranch, Marley Woods, and similar places worldwide. Thus, high strangeness experiences and events can occur independently of a UFO presence (which does not rule out the possibility that high strangeness events (paranormal phenomena) and UFOs are connected).

The ODNI UAP report: lies or truths?

The unclassified ODNI UAP report.

On Friday, June 25, 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) delivered the report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) or UFOs. The title of the unclassified report is "Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." A classified report or annex was issued as well, as confirmed by the ODNI to the Black Vault. 

In the following, I will comment on the parts in the unclassified report that I find most intriguing. Those parts are mainly covered under the headline Specific points in the UAP report. But more importantly, I will highlight parts of the report that, in my view, justify criticism. That criticism is mainly found under the headline The Executive Summary: lies or truths?

But before all that, I will in general terms explain why I think the ODNI UAP report (henceforth "the UAP report") is, despite its shortcomings, historical in a positive sense. 

If you are unfamiliar with the "origin" story of the UAP report, you can catch up on my post from June 27, 2020. Furthermore, I highly recommend you to read this detailed analysis of the UAP report by Tim McMillan for the Debrief. For instance, in McMillan´s analysis, you can learn more about what method or process the UAP report is based on, namely the "Intelligence Cycle", and how it differs from the traditional scientific method. That is important to keep in mind when studying the language of the UAP report. 

Now to the main two reasons as to why the UAP report is historical.

 General comments on the UAP report

Why do I claim that the unclassified UAP report is historical? Because for the first time in history, as far as I am aware of, the U.S. Government (USG) officially confirms: 

• That (some) UAP/UFOs are physical objects — UFOs are real.
• That the USG cannot explain what (some) UAP/UFOs are. 

Now, pause for a while and think about those statements by the USG (I say "the USG" because that is ultimately the authority behind the UAP report). Those statements are an official 180-degree turnaround from the Condon Report, The Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (1969). The Condon Report "concluded that there was no evidence of anything other than commonplace phenomena in the reports and that UFOs did not warrant further investigation." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Condon-Report). 

The obstacle to greater transparency

M. C. Escher: "Band of Union".

 In this post, I will outline what I believe is the greatest obstacle to greater official transparency on the UFO phenomenon. I will also suggest a plausible solution to circumvent the obstacle. 

The obstacle

What is the greatest obstacle to official transparency regarding the UFO issue? My claim is that the most significant barrier is fear in the minds of some high-ranking officials in the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community (IC). My suggestion to a solution is to moderate that fear—I will return to "how" further down.

In the following, let us use common sense and introductory human psychology. First, what is behind these high-ranking officials’ fear? If you are familiar with UFO history, you know that the documented evidence of denial and ridicule of the significance of UFOs/UAP by the U.S. government (USG) is abundant and clear. The reason for the high-ranking officials´ fear is that the official stance of denial and ridicule, held over many decades, will be made aware to the public.

Is past behaviour the best predictor of future behaviour?

The purpose of this post is to look back at UFO history to explore whether "past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour" concerning the forthcoming UAP report by the UAP Task Force (UAPTF). Can the US government's past behaviour regarding the UFO issue (for example, "Project Blue Book") help us predict the content and the outcome of the report by the UAPTF?

Further down, I will explore that question with the help of two declassified National Security Agency documents (see the links at the very end of this post). But first, some background to the purpose of this post.

Background

Most people who have studied the literature on the UFO phenomenon, or subject, know that the current interest in and serious concern over the UFO issue by the US government (USG) is nothing new. Neither is the more serious attention on UFOs/UAP from the mainstream media. One of many examples is the Washington Post article from 19 January 1979. 

Some in the ufo community see the record of how the USG has dealt with the UFO issue in the past (again, think "Project Blue Book" or the "Condon Report") as an almost certain predictor of how current events will end. Others in the ufo community are more optimistic and perhaps, in some cases, naive about how the recent UFO "revival" will evolve ("full Disclosure!"). 

Will the forthcoming report by the UAPTF turn out to be a "Project Blue Book, 2.0", or will its outcome be more desirable from a transparency perspective? In my opinion, that question remains open. At the same time, I believe we have reasons for cautious optimism, which I will expand on in a moment.

Professor Kevin Knuth on why the USS Nimitz "Tic Tac" encounter was not a secret military test

"Kevin Knuth on UFOs, Nimitz / Tic Tac video, and a new kind of Theory of Everything" Published on the YouTube channel Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal on April 13, 2021. Duration: 2:30:57.

Kevin Knuth is a Professor of physics at the University of Albany, a former NASA scientist, and the Editor-In-Chief of the Entropy journal. He has a unique Theory of Everything called Influence Theory.

First, I recommend you to look at the links in the video description of this episode on Mr. Jaimungal's YouTube channel. You can find a few of those interesting and useful links to Professor Knuth's research on the UFO phenomenon and work in physics below: 

Papers:

• Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939
• An Introduction to Influence Theory: Kinematics and Dynamics: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09618

Presentation:

• Knuth's presentation delineating interstellar space travel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXswO... (In the conversation with Mr. Jaimungal, Professor Knuth summarizes his fascinating hypothesis on "nomadic" space travelling civilisations, starting around the 52 min mark).

Also, in the video description of this interview, or conversation, with guest Kevin Knuth, you can find timestamps of what and when topics are covered during the conversation. Roughly speaking, the first half of the 2 hours and 30 minutes is about Professor Knuth's interest in and research of the UFO phenomenon. The second half is about his scientific work and career as a physicist. Even for a non-scientist like myself, the second half is highly interesting and is, as I understand it, relevant to better understand the UFO phenomenon.

Why post this conversation between Mr Jaimungal and Professor Knuth? There are several reasons, but my main reason is that I think what Professor Knuth says about the USS Nimitz "Tic Tac" encounter in 2004 is important to keep in my mind, especially since the recent video release of a "pyramid-shaped" flying object (actually, several objects, if objects at all). In the latter case, we do not have any or very little data on what is going on (some argue that the video has significant data to reveal if you know what to look for, and they may be right). In the former case, Knuth and his colleagues at the Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies (SCU) have analysed and published a paper on (see above: the first link under "Papers"). 

Strange US Navy UAP incidents in July of 2019 raises pressing questions

 An excellent UAP investigation and article by Adam Kehoe and Marc Cecotti for The Drive/The War Zone. Their article is from March 23, 2021, and you can read it at this link: 

• https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39913/multiple-destroyers-were-swarmed-by-mysterious-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights

In the article´s first paragraph, the authors write what the article is about:

[I]n July of 2019, a truly bizarre series of events unfolded around California’s Channel Islands. Over a number of days, groups of unidentified aircraft, which the U.S. Navy simply refers to as ‘drones’ or 'UAVs,' pursued that service's vessels, prompting a high-level investigation.

Then what follows, is Kehoe´s and Cecotti´s own investigation into the details of the bizarre series of "UAV" incidents in July of 2019. The details come largely from the authors' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

My purpose with this post is mainly to share the excellent article in question, and also to make a few and short comments about the "UAV" incidents as described in the article.

Former Director of National Intelligence wants more transparency on the UFO/UAP issue

 

"Former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, on UFOs". Uploaded on The Black Vault Originals' Youtube channel, March 21 2021. Duration: 14:47 minutes.

SHOW NOTES 

----------------------- 

o Full FoxNews Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIe3j...​ 

o Marco Rubio on UFOs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtRY...​ 

o Former CIA Director John Brennan on UFOs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEjNO...

​
Another former high ranking US governmental official recently made some interesting statements about the UFO/UAP issue on Fox News. In general, I'm not a fan of Fox News. At the same time, when it comes to serious coverage of the UFO/UAP subject, the channel has (unfortunately) been one of the best these last couple of three years or so.

In the video above, John Greenewald Jr. at The Black Vault shares his thoughts about the former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe's, recent statements about the UFO/UAP issue in an interview by Fox News. I agree with most of Greenewald's observations and comments on the most pertinent things to be aware of in Ratcliffe's quite generous and, probably, honest statements about what the US military and Intelligence Community (IC) knows about UFOs/UAPs. Or perhaps more correctly, what they do not know about UFOs/UAPs? Further below, I'll say more about Greenewald's comments and share my thoughts on some of Ratcliffe's statements.

The consciousness aspect of the UFO phenomenon. III.

Introduction  

This is the third post on the connection between consciousness and the UFO phenomenon. However, this post has a somewhat different purpose than the two previous ones. I`ll come to the point of this post further down.

 My personal belief is that a deeper understanding of consciousness can help us better understand the UFO phenomenon and vice versa. How? My best guess at the moment is that the common factor that will explain the intimate connection between consciousness (i.e., altered perception/experience of reality as reported by experiencers) and the UFO phenomenon is some kind of quantum process. Perhaps consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, and every one of us is a specific manifestation, or expression, of the fundamental consciousness? 

That is, of course, highly speculative. Still, even prominent people like Sir Roger Penrose endorse the view of consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe (but not in a panpsychism-manner, as my last question in the paragraph above is, perhaps, implying). That is, consciousness is not an emergent phenomenon or epiphenomenal. You can read about the philosophical underpinnings and problems of emergent properties in this entry on plato.standford.edu.  

Want to help UAP disclosure?

 The link below takes you to an article on the website the-unidentified.net. If you want to help to raise the public´s awareness of the validity of the UAP (UFO) issue, then the article will explain what and how you can do that. Also, the article provides you with some material (a Google drive link) you can use on social media and/or in other contexts. Here is the link to the article:

https://www.the-unidentified.net/want-to-help-uap-disclosure-heres-how-to-help-the-enduapsecrecy-campaign/

The article is a part of a bigger campaign - #EndUAPSecrecy - which is mostly taking place on "UFO Twitter". If you are unfamiliar with the campaign, the article explains its purpose and goals. I have not been on Twitter for the last year or year and a half, so I am not updated on the details of the current nature or status of the campaign. 

However, I am aware that people like Luis Elizondo (the former manager of Pentagon´s UFO program "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP)), acknowledge the #EndUAPSecrecy-campaign, and other efforts by the ufo-community to inform the public about the UFO phenomenon and to push for more governmental transparency. For example, you can hear Elizondo express his gratitude for the efforts of the ufo-community (perhaps currently mostly on Twitter) on this podcast. (The link takes you to one of my previous posts). 

Back to the article. It mentions an upcoming initiative, which I find promising:

There is an upcoming initiative, ‘The Big Phone Home’ which is going to take place 24/04/2021, the idea is people from mainstream Ufology and some in UFOTwitter are contacting congressional representatives to request UAP transparency. We in EndUAPSecrecy could use this data to do a global social media push into the mainstream. A few hundred or even thousand people all demanding UAP transparency across the internet should make waves.

Overall, I stand behind the purpose and goals of #EndUAPSecrecy. I think it is an important campaign and I believe it has had some positive effects of mainly reaching outside the ufo-community with credible information on the UFO issue. In other words, I think the campaign has contributed to raise the status of the UFO phenomenon as a serious subject to discuss, and to reduce the social stigma. In my book, that is more than something. 

I also think these kinds of campaigns should remind us of what people can accomplish when they come together, find a common purpose, and coordinate their efforts to reach a meaningful goal. What if humans could use this "power and energy of the collective" for good and something constructive more often?

Take care!

Janne

The Aguadilla UFO Incident: Data for scientists to examine

"Aguadilla UFO Incident - George Knapp - Mystery Wire." Published on Mystery Wire´s Youtube channel on February 12 2021. Duration: 22:02 minutes.

https://www.mysterywire.com/ufo/aguad...​ Aguadilla UFO Incident - George Knapp talks with UFOlogist Rich Hoffman about this sighting and the video recorded by the U.S. government.

The video clip/interview summarises a longer interview with Mr Rich Hoffman about the Aguadilla UFO case. You can find part one of that longer interview here. If you are not familiar with the Aguadilla UFO case, then you should look into it. I find it more compelling regarding data/evidence than the Tic Tac UFO case. The full report on the Aguadilla UFO case, which Mr George Knapp och Mr Hoffman refers to in the interview, can be found on Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) website. (Click on the link and scroll down to the second full report).

You can read more about Mr Hoffman´s background and credentials on SCU´s website (or listen to part one of the longer interview), so I will not say more about that here. Neither am I going to comment on what is said in the video clip above about the Aguadilla UFO incident, except for the following:

The consciousness aspect of the UFO phenomenon. II.

Introduction

This is a second post on the consciousness aspect of the UFO phenomenon. The first post on the consciousness aspect you can find here.  As I wrote in that first post, I think it is a good idea to have some basic knowledge of what science and philosophy (in the West) says about human consciousness, so we at least have some starting point from where to continue our exploration of the connection between consciousness and the UFO phenomenon. 

It is not certain that modern neuroscience (or quantum physics) can help us further understand the UFO phenomenon´s effects on human consciousness (i.e., altered experiences of space-time and profound psychological and emotional changes). Instead, a greater degree of clarity will perhaps be found in religious and spiritual traditions from around the world? Or, more likely, both science and spirituality will be sources of progress and insights on this issue.

Before we go to the main point of this post, I want to repeat that the main purpose of this post, the previous post, and the coming posts on the consciousness aspect of the UFO phenomenon, is to, hopefully, elicit new thoughts and discussions about what the consciousness aspect can teach us about the nature and origin of the UFO phenomenon, and vice versa. 

Or, more specifically: what a person´s altered perception/experience of reality in connection to an encounter with the UFO phenomenon can teach us about the nature and intent of the UFO phenomenon (the nature and intent of at least some part of the UFO phenomenon), and the capabilities of human consciousness. 

The consciousness aspect of the UFO phenomenon. I.

 

Background

Beginning with this blog post, I will focus more on the consciousness aspect of the UFO phenomenon. Why? There are several important reasons, but I think to suffice to mention in this initial post are these two reasons:

1. Throughout UFO history, people claiming contact with the UFO phenomenon (sightings, encounters, communication) have more often than not testified profound changes in their worldview and values of what matters in life.
2.  Individuals, or experiencers, also talk about telepathic communication and manipulation of the experiencers´ perception/experience of space and time during an encounter with the UFO phenomenon.

So the first (1.) point should indicate that these experiencers genuinely believe that something extraordinary happened to them. Something that had a profound and lifelong effect on them as human beings. It would be dishonest of me to claim that I know for a fact what happened to these experiencers or who or what caused the profound changes. I do not know that. 

But I know that profound changes in one´s worldview and values, as seen and documented in some of the experiencers, are not typical and do not usually occur quickly. These kinds of profound changes are generally related to traumatic events (war, violence, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse), or some sort of sudden insight, or expanded awareness, often in connection to mystical and spiritual experiences, meditation, euphoric states, etc. 

Therefore, I think there are cases of contact between humans and something unknown, which are difficult to explain in any conventional way (i.e., the profound psychological and emotional changes). More importantly, I think there are some cases of contact where the human genuinely believes his or her experience and candidly tells his or her story. For me, that is reason enough to take their stories seriously and respect the people telling them. 

How will official transparency progress?

 

Introduction

What are the plausible developments of what seems to be a genuine openness about UFOs/UAP from, particularly, the U.S. Government (USG)?

In the following, I am going to give some plausible answers to that question. Or speculate on the question, if you will, because I do not have any facts to argue with certainty for any of the scenarios presented below.

The reader should note that my presupposition is that a disclosure process, or greater official transparency, about the physical and technological aspect of UFOs/UAP, is, in fact, ongoing since late 2017. I also think the disclosure, or whatever the right term, is benign at this point in time. Not everyone in the ufo community agrees with my assessment. But I have chosen not to go into the different views and arguments on the question "disclosure or not?" or "disclosure or Psyop?" in this text. 

For now, I can say that even if the disclosure/transparency is benign and genuine, it does not mean that official channels and authorities will not control the flow of information to the public. That is neither surprising nor necessarily suspicious. There are, of course, limits to the extent of control that government officials can exert. 

I started to write this text before ufo historian and author Mr Richard Dolan made his show "The End of UFO Disclosure?" on his YouTube channel (live-streamed on August 19, 2020). Even though I disagree with Mr Dolan's pessimistic or realistic outlook on the future of disclosure, I think he raises some relevant points and questions in his analysis from August 19, 2020. 

I will come back to Mr Dolan's video further down, but now to my thoughts on plausible scenarios to the question mentioned at the beginning of this text. 

Political scientist Alexander Wendt on UFOs

 The link at the end of this text takes you to an interview with professor of international relations, Alexander Wendt, done by Sean Illing for Vox. The article was updated on July 24, 2020, due to the New York Times (NYT) article about the Pentagon´s Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force (there is a link to the NYT article in Illing´s article). 

My main point with this text is to highlight the fact that most people who study credible data on the UFO phenomenon will end up with the conclusion that there is a real phenomenon worthy of a scientific investigation. Most people reaching that conclusion can separate the issue of UFOs being real from the issue of what they are. Unfortunately, unsound sceptics like Seth Shostak and Neil deGrasse Tyson tries to make it the case that everyone interested in, or all believers of the reality of, the UFO phenomenon cannot differentiate between those two issues. 

For sure, some UFO believers have a hard time understanding the difference between saying that UFOs are real and what/who is behind UFOs. But Sean Illing and Alexander Wendt do not fit into that category. I think both Illing´s and Wendt´s approach to the UFO phenomenon, and their conversation in the interview, can serve as a model of how to be and stay, both open-minded and sceptical. 

Beware of the so called "skeptics"

 

"Whatever you do ... don't go West." Uploaded on YouTube channel 1967sander on the 11 August 2020. Duration: 5:15 minutes.

Among UFO skeptics he is considered as a main source of information and many debunkers see in him a real image guru but is he really that professional as they say? We are of a different opinion!

Licens
Creative Commons-licens – attribution (återanvändning tillåten)

 The reason I post this video is that I agree with what the representative of the imagery analysis team, 1967sander, says about the self-proclaimed "sceptics" of the UFO phenomenon. In this case, the "sceptic", or debunker, is Mike West. I do not know Mike West personally so I cannot judge his character, values, etc. Neither am I agreeing with 1967sander on the "Area 51 UFOs" mentioned in the video above. 

More specifically, I agree with 1967sander (the representative of the team) when he in the video says that criticism and scepticism are important and welcome if done professionally. My experience with most of the so-called sceptics, or what I call unsound sceptics, is that they seem to have gone to the same course in "unsound scepticism 101." It seems like that course is teaching people to become cognitively rigid, close-minded, and to repeat the same sceptical-sounding phrases. Also, to have an extremely stubborn attitude, and at no cost change an opinion. 

Of course, you have the same rigid thinking and stubbornness among the halleluja-believers in UFOs (referring to people believing all ETs are about peace, love, and understanding).

Scientists think UFOs deserve scientific investigation

**This text is copied from my article on Medium. Therefore, most of the links will not open in a new window.** /Janne 

*******************************************************************************

In an opinion piece in Scientific American, two scientists write that UFOs are a scientifically interesting problem and deserve objective scientific analysis.

The two scientists and authors of the article in Scientific American, Ravi Kopparapu, a planetary scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and Jacob Haqq-Misra, an astrobiologist at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, suggest that interdisciplinary teams of scientists should study UFOs, or UAP (UAP, referring to “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon”, is the preferred term by the U.S. Department of Defense).

Why should scientists spend their time and energy, and risk their reputation, on studying UFOs, according to the authors? Their answer in the article published on July 27, 2020, is partly based on the released videos by the Department of Defense (DoD) showing UFOs/UAP, the recent confirmation by the DoD that the videos are in fact genuine, and that the flying objects are still classified as “unidentified”, or “unexplained.”

But the authors' main answer to the question of why study the UFO phenomenon is also the most pertinent one:

Progress in the status of the UFO phenomenon as a legitimate subject to study

  

"UFO News Update: 8/2/2020." Uploaded by YouTube channel UFO News Network Sunday, 2 August, 2020. Duration: 34:04 minutes. 

Frank discusses even more NY Times article fallout and their follow up article, the Mellon CNN interview where he confirms crash retrievals were brought up in Congressional briefings, the Scientific American article calling for more scientific study of UFOs and a review of Episode 4 of Unidentified.

Host Frank Stalter comments on the latest UFO news from the past week, for example, Blumenthal´s and Kean´s New York Times article "Do we believe in U.F.O.s. That´s the wrong question." (see first link below), CNN´s interview with Chris Mellon (see second link below), and Scientific American´s article about UFOs deserving scientific investigation (see the third link below). 

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/insider/UFO-reporting.html

• https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/08/01/pentagons-ufo-unit-will-make-some-findings-public.cnn

• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unidentified-aerial-phenomena-better-known-as-ufos-deserve-scientific-investigation/

Enjoy the progress in the status of the UFO phenomenon as a legitimate subject to study. 

Take care!

/Janne

Fox News on the latest New York Times UFO article + Senator Mark Warner

"Fox News | New York Times Latest Article." Uploaded by YouTube channel Project Unity on July 24, 2020. Duration: 1:16 minutes.

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us...

The New York Times story has hit the wire and I will be speaking about this in more detail very soon, I am happy to announce I will be conducting the first interview with both Ralph Blumenthal & Leslie Kean.

The creator and manager of Project Unity, Jay, is speaking more about his involvement with Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean in this video. Congratulations to and well done by Project Unity. I also raise my hat to other UFO researchers who have played a part in the New York Times investigating this aspect (the Pentagon´s UAP Task Force, possible "off-world vehicles", etc.) of the UFO phenomenon.

Both the video above with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, and the video below from Mystery Wire with Senator Mark Warner, is mainly directed at people who are unfamiliar with the transformation of the status of the UFO subject. The public has to understand that the UFO phenomenon is no longer a tin foil hat subject. That it never has been in some parts of the US Armed Forces is another story.