Its not likely UFOs!
Since we can’t get any closer to the truth in the UFO report, I feel we need to look into the plausibility that it could be something else than alien origin or a hoax. Talking to Christine, the author of “The Annunaki Bible”, science fiction author and fantasy author, we get closer to reasonable thinking.
Karl: Good morning Christine, how nice of you to join us again.
Christine: Good morning Karl, thank you for asking me to join again. It is always really interesting having these conversations with you.
Karl: Oh thank you, I was going to say the same but you just took over my show! (Laughs)
[Christine laughs, inaudible]
Karl: So we’re back here Christine, discussing what actually was seen in the sky at the time of the fighter pilots recordings of the UFO’s, and what really draws attention this time, is how you sound very much like Chris Hadfield in reasoning! That’s why my first question will be, “do you know him personally”?
Christine: (Laughs) No, I never even heard of the guy until today! Look, alot of people are influenced by stories like this, and it doesn’t matter what the story’s about. If it is “armageddon coming on”, raining elephants, blood rivers or something else magnified a thousand times, most people will be activated emotionally, just like if someone hit a light switch, and then they will react upon their emotions. Logic has no room in acute situations and can’t beat the overflowing adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol.
Karl: I know I’ve asked you this before, “what do you think it was”, and you told me you thought it was a hoax, do you still believe it is a hoax of some kind?
Christine: I don’t think I called it a hoax? I think I said that anything is possible and so is a hoax. I believe that if I can recreate an incident, as I do when trying to fix people’s computers, I then become a temporary specialist, I will know exactly what happened. The same thing goes when I try to prove alien existence in my novels or highly advanced technology, I need to know I can create it first!
Karl: In the article below, they’re discussing whether it could be an army project or not, do you have some developing thoughts around that lead?
Christine: As in recreating software problems to solve them, I need to know that it is possible to create something without a “exhaustion pipe”. These objects seem to float in mid-air, and I need to ask myself a few questions. I will brainstorm and think “do the UFOs eat or glide on protons”? “Is the UFOs material highly conductive and can float on electricity from electromagetic fascilities like HAARP”?
Karl: That is actually a very interesting point, HAARP is for you who never heard of it before -High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Can you elaborate about HAARP for us?
Christine: Sure Karl! HAARP was or is a research program that officially published innocent articles, like how they shot out extreme amounts of high-intensity radio waves to make beautiful creations. These radio waves scattered further out in the ionosphere and created beautiful patterns, however the electromagnetic waves could also hold objects in mid-air closer to earth, -if the object was a lightweight superconductor, could be charged and made of ex. nano-tubes.
Karl: So… sorry for nagging now (laughs), you believe it could be army prototypes from Lockheed Martin maybe?
Christine: Again, I don’t know? Look at it this way, if the army would have created UFOs without anykind of combustion chamber, that news, that fact would also create chaos with other superpowers! If you had such tool, that you could charge from earth while flying, I’d either don’t say a word about it to no one or I’ll notify all news agencies around the world! These sightings that we’re talking about now in other words, seem more like “we want you to see this, we want you to speculate, and we don’t want to lie, so we say nothing”!
Karl: That’s a very good conclusion! It totally makes sense. It would basically mean, that if it was “US airforce” prototypes, they’ve would have known it, if it were Russian spy’s… I mean wow, we could’ve been on the brink of war, and if it were Alien UFOs, you know how untrustworthy US Navy, US Airforce and the entire American military would look! Whatever flew around them that day made it look like a pickaboo game! The pilots never had a chance!
Karl: Do you still feel that you can’t identify the objects on the video or be more sure about what we actually experience there?
Christine: I cannot identify what it is I see on the video, I have no clue only assumptions, probability… vague conclusions?
Karl: A listener just called in and he asks you “you can see the UFOs with your own eyes, and it is not an amateur video, how much more proof do you need?”. What can you say to him Christine?
Christine: I think this theme has been brought up in philosphical debates several times during past centuries. “It must be true because a very important person said so”. If you keep that in mind or if your mind is set that way already, I’ll invite you to the Cinema. The featured movie we’re gonna watch is Avatar2. UFO’s, space ships, star cruisers, planets in other galaxies, all is there, and the movie team is using the latest technology in 3D animation. If you got lost in Avatar, you will be reborn with Avatar2! Ok? So, let’s say two week’s past from us watching the movie. In a UFO group on Facebook you see a photage of a UFO landing on earth, where a very prominent person claims, “what you see is real”! This prominent person is the US President. After watching the video several times and sharing it on Social media where ever you can, you get the feeling you’ve seen the sequence somewhere else. After more than a year, someone else on internet found the video to be a cut-out from Avatar2!
Karl: What Christine is simply saying is, “what evidence do you really see?”. And again, I think Christine is right, -a sentence claiming something is true, isn’t in itself a physical proof!
Christine: Yes exactly, the claim “-I saw this”, barely reflects an individuals experience. This can be real or not for that person and/or, real or not for everyone. We need to distinguish for “who or whom” the “-I saw this” claim can be applicated on. As in “If one saw, but not two, if two saw, but not five”, what is the factor between “I saw” and “I didn’t” see?
Karl: How would you conclude our discussion today?
Christine: Fun as usual, and “reality is in the eyes of the beholder”!
Karl: -And that’s a wrap!