Check out the original article here.
Check out the original article here.
When the book, “The 37th Parallel” was released September of 2016, people who bought it, got first hand information about Robert Bigelow’s, involvement with UFOs. Eight months after the release of the book, his May, 2017 interview with CBS; he confessed to the world his belief in alien visitation to this planet. Then seven months later on December 16th, the New York Times printed the article, “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: the Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program, in which Robert Bigelow was a part of.
Dec. 16th, 2017, New York Times excerpt: by Helene Cooper, Ralph Blumenthal, and Leslie Kean.
Contracts obtained by The Times show a congressional appropriation of just under $22 million beginning in late 2008 through 2011. The money was used for management of the program, research and assessments of the threat posed by the objects.
The funding went to Mr. Bigelow’s company, Bigelow Aerospace, which hired subcontractors and solicited research for the program.
Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena. Researchers also studied people who said they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for any physiological changes. In addition, researchers spoke to military service members who had reported sightings of strange aircraft.
But wait, there’s more!
– Bigelow purchased the Skinwalker Ranch in Utah, which is said to be riddled with UFOs, cryptozoological creatures, and hyper-dimensional portals to other realities. It is strictly off limits to the public now.
– Bigelow proposed and succeeded, to fund the efforts of MUFON field investigators to enable them to respond quickly to alleged UFO incidents. The agreement between Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) and MUFON sets up a “Star Team Impact Project” (SIP), with an initial funding period from five months to a year, with the option to renew for a second year.
Note: After the Bigelow/MUFON STAR Team proposal became a reality, rumors start escalating within the MUFON organization that Bigelow’s own personal field investigators were infiltrating some of MUFON STAR investigations, by showing up prior and running their own investigations.
Also, money supposedly allocated from Bigelow to the MUFON STAR department to design rapid-response investigative kits, never materializes. Why? Maybe because Bigelow used the money for his own investigative team?
2010 FAA Press Release:
– “Persons wanting to report UFO/unexplained phenomena activity should contact a UFO/ unexplained phenomena reporting data collection center, such as Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) (voice: 1-877-979-7444 or e-mail: Reporting@baass.org)”
– Bigelow acquires a piece of a Roswell artifact for testing, found by Chuck Zukowski and Debbie Ziegelmeyer. After initial testing, results show unable to identify any mass produced polymer that matches the artifact. BAAS holds on to the artifact for a year, then returns it stating it was nothing.
2017 December, New York Times Article:
– 2007 to 2012, $22 million dollar budget for the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, most of the money went to Bigelow Aerospace. (BAAS)
– Luis Elizondo ran the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program in the Pentagon which the government has now admitted existed. The government is saying the program ended a few years ago, but Elizondo is already on record talking about his replacement and the fact that it’s still going on.
– Under Bigelow’s direction, Bigelow’s company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials.
In my opinion, the Pentagon’s Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program is still active today with Bigelow being a big part of it, and this is why. The US Defense Department has a simple way of keeping certain programs on-going just by changing their names. History attests to this when looking at Project Blue Book in the 1950’s. First the project started out as Project Sign in the late 1940’s, then moved into Project Grudge, and eventually changed to Project Blue Book. By changing the name of a program and maybe moving it from one department to another, funding appears to haven been open and closed for each. In the Black Project arena using government funding money, or money acquired under other circumstances, this is a simple way to throw suspicion off-track. One type of funding like this is called, “Secret Funding”. As an example, secret funding was used for the Manhattan Project during World War II. The atomic bomb project needed over two billion dollars for completion. Congress approved this budget under the direction of the president not knowing what is was for. These are refereed as, “General Appropriation Funding”, for secret projects.
Is it necessary for the Pentagon to fund UFO sightings? Let’s look at the numbers for valid sightings in 2016 and 2017 to answer this question.
Some UFO Sightings are real!
Michio Kaku, Theoretical Physicist believes, 5% of UFO sightings are real, and are worth investigating. So let’s crunch some numbers.
National UFO Reporting Center
2016 – 5, 619 sighting reports
2017 – 4,655 sighting reports (as of date)
But, how many people actually take the time to report their sighting? We know as investigators, that not everyone who has a sighting actually takes the time to report it. First you have to get to a computer, then find a website to report it, then go through all the questions some sites have to report it. If it’s too much trouble or takes too much time, some people won’t bother reporting their sighting, only those few who are really concerned, will.
Let’s say out of 100 sightings, only 20% of the people will take the time to report it. This number, in my opinion, is a little high, realistically it’s probably less than 15%, but let’s use 20.
2016: 20%(x) = 5619 → 5619/20% → x = 28,096 Actual total sightings
2017: 20%(x) = 4655 → 4655/20% → x = 23,275 Actual total sightings
Now let’s use the Michio Kaku 5% real UFO theory.
2016 → 28,096 sightings x .05 = 1,404 Real UFO sightings were scientific investigation.
2017 → 23,275 sightings x .05 = 1,164 Real UFO sightings were scientific investigation.
The previous data was referenced from just one UFO reporting center, what if we add another UFO reporting center like, MUFON. Now you may ask, what if a person reports their sighting to “two” separate reporting websites? Well MUFON periodically checks to see if their reports have been reported on other websites, and based on their checks, it’s less than 1% probability.
MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) Sighting Reports just USA:
2016 → 5365 sightings
2017 → 5446 sightings (as of date)
Use the 20% sighting ratio and include the 5% Michio Kaku theory:
2016 → 5365 sightings/20% = 26,825 x .05 = 1,341 UFO Sightings Real
2017 → 5446 sightings/20% = 27,230 x .05 = 1,361 UFO Sightings Real
Add total number of 2016’s National UFO Reporting Center reports with MUFON’s reports.
NUFORC → 2016 → 1,404
MUFON → 2016 → 1,341
2016 : 2,745 sightings were actual UFO’ s (+-1%).
Add total number of 2017’s National UFO Reporting Center reports with MUFON’s reports.
NUFORC → 2017 → 1,164
MUFON → 2017 → 1,361
2017 : 2,525 sightings were actual UFO’ s (+-1%).
Add 2016 with 2017 -> 5,270
Just over 5000 sightings combined from 2016 and 2017 were considered valid UFO sightings and worth being investigated by the scientific community. That’s huge! Now you know why the Pentagon is interested in this. But the big question is? Are they running their own investigations, or merely monitoring what they already know? Only time will tell.
As for the New York Times article released December 16th, 2017 tying Robert Bigelow with a government agency investigating UFOs? If the New York Times had paid a little more attention to their own book review of The 37th Parallel back on November 25th, of 2016, and had someone other than non qualified idiot like Sam Kean review it saying, “The book falls flat as a conspiracy thriller because its revelations are so pathetic”, they would have known about the Bigelow-UFO tie-in, a year earlier!
To the New York Times… You need to re-review the book and you definitely owe me and Ben Mezrich, an apology!
Check out the original article here.
Author: Chuck Zukowski
I recently got an email requesting that I comment on something called “The Book of Og.” I’m not sure what is being claimed about this book. You can be sure, though, that this book is NOT a book that goes back to the biblical period (i.e., the OT time period when Og was taking a beating). If someone is selling a book claiming such a “discovery” (and its consequent “translation”) buyers are getting ripped off. Here are a few pages from a couple of scholarly works on this book in case anyone is interested.1
But, in a nutshell, here’s what I am guessing my emailer wanted to know.
The “book of Og” is mentioned in an early medieval text called the Gelasian Decree, which condemns the book of Og as heretical. The book of Og has been identified via several scholarly studies as the Manichaean version of the Book of Giants (aka, “Mani’s Book of Giants”) known from the Dead Sea Scrolls. (See the footnotes in the PDF pages for those studies, most of which are in German). What this means is that Mani, an Armenian prophet (religious figure; 216-274 AD), had access to the book we now know as the Book of Giants from Qumran and produced his own version of it according to his own theology. Mani was the founder of Manicheanism, a gnostic religion. Fragments of Mani’s book of the Giants are known in Middle Persian (an Iranian language used during the Sassanian Empire, 224–654 AD), Sogdian (a language used in eastern Iran from 100-1000 AD), and one old Uyghur fragment (9th-14th centuries AD). The Sogdian and Uyghur material is later than Mani’s Middle Persian since they are translations of Mani’s work (Middle Persian was Mani’s native language).
In other words: (1) The “Book of Og” = Mani’s version of the Book of the Giants known from Qumran. and dates at the earliest to Mani (third century AD); (2) Since Mani’s book is a reworking / adaptation of the Book of the Giants, a good portion of the Mani’s work dates to the time of that Qumran book, sometime in between the late 3rd-2nd century BC, long after the Mosaic period. As readers of my book Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ may recall, the Book of the Giants is “Enochian material” (i.e., its content has a close relationship to 1 Enoch). Note that the Dead Sea scrolls material from Qumran is the earliest witness to 1 Enoch and the Book of the Giants. There is no textual evidence for either book older than Qumran (3rd-2nd century BC). For those interested in the dating, the most thorough scholarly study on the Book of Giants is Stuckenbruck’s critical edition with commentary. If you want to read the Book of Giants this is the trustworthy resource, not something self-published or produced by a non-academic press. Here is Stuckenbruck’s summary of the date of the Book of Giants (=BG) from Qumran:
The date of the original composition of BG cannot be established with certainty. For Milik, this question was made contingent on his claims based on codicology and palaeography, on the one hand, and on his dating of other writings, on the other. With respect to the physical evidence, Milik suggests a terminus ante quem for the earliest manuscript, 4QEnGiantsb (4Q530), which he assigns to “the first half of the first century B. C.”. In addition, he argues that the early Herodian script of 4QEnGiantsa (4Q203), which he believes formed part of the scroll 4Q204 (4QEnochc), suggests a date for that manuscript sometime during the last third of the 1st century B. C. E. Mainly due to archaizing orthographic features in 4QEnochc, Milik finds justification for asserting that it was copied from “an old manuscript, doubtless belonging to the last quarter of the second century B.C. (date of lQIsa and 1QS)”. For a terminus ab quo Milik looks to the account of Enoch’s works in Jubilees 4:17–24 in which BG is not included. Thus, in dating Jubilees to 128–125 B. C. E., Milik proposes that BG was composed later. Milik then attempts to narrow the gap and appeals to a phrase in the Damascus Document col. ii, l.18 (“and whose bodies were as mountains”—אשר … וכהרים גויותיהם) which he thinks may well betray a dependence on “a work devoted more particulary to the descendants of the Watchers”, that is, on BG. By further assigning to the Damascus Document a composition date of 110–100 B. C. E., Milik arrives at the conclusion that BG must have been written sometime between 128 at the earliest (Jub.) and 100 B. C. E. at the latest (Dam. Doc.).
Milik’s argument for dating BG is beset with difficulties. There is, of course, the question of the degree to which the manuscripts can be dated accurately by means of palaeographical analysis. However, apart from the way he dates the Damascus Document, palaeography is not the most decisive part of his reasoning. More important is his emphasis on the silence concerning the existence of BG in Jubilees. Three problems with Milik’s use of Jubilees for dating BG can be identified: (1) Milik’s assumption that BG, in a strict sense, is an Enoch pseudepigraphon (see section III. B above); (2) the related assumption that Jubilees would have alluded to BG were it already composed110; and (3) the dating of Jubilees itself. Regarding the last point, Milik appeals to Jubilees 34:2–9 and 38:1–14, wherein he finds historical allusions to the military activities after the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes in 129 B. C. E. led by John Hycanus I in the Transjordan, Idumaea, and Samaria. This interpretation has, for good reasons, been contested. For one thing, this later date would require one to suppose that the author of Jubilees is casting the Hasmonaean Hyrcanus in a positive light. Even more problematic are the supposed allusions to Hyrcanus. On the contrary, James Vanderkam, after a detailed study of the place-names in Jubilees 34:4 and of the historical allusions throughout the work, cannot identify any event after 161 B. C. E.; the accounts in 34:2–9 and 38:1–17 were influenced by the Maccabean victories during that year over Nicanor at Bethhoron and over the Edomites (so 1 Macc. 7:39–50 and 5:3, 65).
As for the Damascus Document (CD col. ii, ll. 18–19)—the difficulty of dating this work aside—, there is little therein which suggests that the passage actually alludes to or cites BG. While the passage clearly refers to the Watchers (עירי השמים) and their sons (בניהם) the description of the latter recalls the description of the Amorites in Amos 2:9 (“his height like the height of cedars”; cf. l.19—“whose height was as the height of cedars”). García Martínez has argued that the second parallel phrase (“whose bodies were as mountains”), which Milik derives from BG, is sufficiently explicable as a “poetic extension” of the first. Even if, however, one grants that the Damascus Document is citing a recent tradition concerning the giants, we may ask why this tradition should necessarily be BG (cf. 1 En. 7:2) or why such a tradition should necessarily be a literary one. Milik’s proposal that BG was composed between the respective productions of Jubilees and the Damascus Document rests on a series of questionable hypotheses which are extrinsic to any of the data within the Qumran BG fragments themselves.
Beyer’s dating of BG to the latter part of the 3rd century B. C. E. offers an alternative to Milik’s view. His date involves the debatable hypothesis that (1) BG was originally composed in Hebrew and the related assumption that (2) BG would already have been copied alongside other Enoch literature as “das jüngste Stück des hebräischen Henochs” in the 3rd century B. C. E.. Nevertheless, the advantage of Beyer’s proposal is the literary dependence of BG on the Book of Watchers which it implies (see section III.B). If composition of the latter occurred sometime during the 3rd century B. C. E., then here we might have a reasonable terminus ab quo.
Regarding the earliest possible date of composition, García Martínez suggested a way forward by calling attention to the significance of the relationship between 4Q530 col. ii, ll.17–19 and the text of Daniel 7:9–10. At that time, the pertinent BG material was, of course, still unavailable. García Martínez reasoned that if Milik’s claim of literary dependence on the Danielic text were to be substantiated, then the composition of BG may be assigned to an “upper limit by the middle of the 2nd century B.C.”. On the basis of my comparison of 4Q530 col. ii, 16–20 (’Ohyah’s dream) with Daniel 7 (see Chapter Two), it is difficult to maintain a literary dependence of the former on the latter without accounting for some important differences. On the contrary, it appears that BG actually preserves a theophanic tradition in a form which lacks traditio-historical developments that one finds in Daniel 7: While this conclusion does not necessarily mean that BG must have been composed before the passage in Daniel, the comparison of the texts strengthens the possibility that BG may have been written sometime between the Book of Watchers and Daniel, that is, sometime between the late 3rd century and 164 B. C. E.
Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary (ed. Martin Hengel and Peter Schäfer; vol. 63; Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 28–31.
- The sources of these two items are, respectively: John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Monographs of Hebrew Union College; Hebrew Union College Press, 1992; Matthew Goff, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Enrico Morano (eds.), Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan (WUNT 360; Mohr Siebeck, 2016). ↩
|Director Lasse Hallstrom and producer Laura Bickford are teaming to make a movie based on investigative reporter Leslie Kean’s bestselling book UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record. Kean is one of three reporters who broke the widely-|
covered, recent story on the front page of the New York Times about the existence of a Pentagon UFO program called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program which has secretly been in operation since 2007.
| My book ‘UFO Contacts in Italy – Volume One’ will be published by FLYING DISK PRESS in the UK on February 1st, 2018. Much of the information in this book is being published in English for the very first time.
The book contains a whole array of UFO/alien contact cases from Italy but surely one of the most unusual incidents is this one from 1957. It is the only case that I am aware of that allegedly has photographs of the inside of the UFO.
What was destined to be called “the Friendship case” started near
|Photo of a Purported Extraterrestrial Pilot|
About the author:
Roberto Pinotti was born in Venice, Italy, in 1944. He is an aerospace journalist and author and the main Italian scholar in ufology, with a degree in politics and sociology from the University of Florence. Dr. Pinotti is a world-class UFO expert. He is the only living founder of Italy’s Centro Ufologico Nazionale (CUN), one of the world’s oldest and most authoritative private UFO study organizations formed 50 years ago. Formerly an officer of the NATO Italian Army III Missile Brigade, he also co-operated with the Italian Intelligence community as a consultant for UFOs and was given important official documents by the Italian Department of Defense and was a writer for the Rivista Aeronautica of the Italian Air Force. Over the last 50 years he has been the the Editor of CUN’s ufological magazine, publishing more than 250 issues.
|The 77-year-old prime minister had good reason to feel inquisitive. It was the height of the Cold War, and the news had been filled by stories of odd lights and entities invading the sky above Washington DC.|
These sightings had re-ignited the ‘flying saucer’ phenomenon that began in earnest following the famous Roswell incident a few years earlier, in which a mysterious airborne disc – later explained away as a weather balloon – was believed to have crashed near a ranch in New Mexico.
The episode opened the floodgates to accounts of unidentified flying objects from the public and military personnel, leading the Government to set up its own ‘UFO desk’, as it became
People didn’t simply submit letters. For more than 60 years until the unit was scrapped in 2009, witnesses sent in photographs, drawings and even elaborate paintings of what they had spotted – the most remarkable of which are highlighted in a new book by Dr David Clarke.
I am frequently asked for my opinion on the Book of Jasher and the Book of Gad the Seer (more properly called the Chronicles of Gad the Seer, per 1 Chron 29:29). There are books by both titles floating around (typically on the internet) that purport to be these ancient source texts from the biblical (OT) time period. They aren’t. Books you might see online or buy in some form are not the authentic source texts referred to in the Bible. They are not books that belong in the Bible. They aren’t even ancient.
I have blogged before about the so-called book of Jasher. The link includes a short peer-reviewed article on the recent book purporting to be the ancient source text.
For this post, I want to add something about the Chronicles of Gad the Seer. Most scholars
Fortunately, there is a fine peer-reviewed article on the literary work that purports to be the Chronicle of Gad the Seer: Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Date of The Words of Gad the Seer.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109.3 (1990): 475-492. It’s available on academia.edu so I have posted it here:
The introduction to the article reads in part:
The purpose of this paper is to discuss a “new” book by the name of The Words of Gad the Seer. This is an apocryphal Hebrew book known only from a unique manuscript that was copied at Cochin, India, in the middle of the eighteenth century. At the beginning of the nineteenth century it was purchased by the University of Cambridge, England, and since then it has been there. The name of the book, together with other extra-biblical books that were in the possession of the Jews of Cochin, has appeared in print in German, Hebrew, and English during the last two centuries. Nevertheless, this book is almost unknown to the scholarly world. The aim of this article is not only to draw attention to this book but also to demonstrate its significance by evaluating its date.
Bar-Ilan concludes the book is very old, but not the book referred to in the OT:
The Words of Gad the Seer treated here is not the book that was in existence in biblical times and was apparently lost. The book discussed here was composed in one of the early centuries of this era, but was noticed only at the end of the eighteenth century. When the book was discovered, it was thought to be a medieval work and was assumed to be of little value. Contemplating the different proofs of its date of composition shows that the arguments for its lateness are outweighed by evidence of its early date. Nevertheless, even if one believes that the book is late, its importance is unquestionable. Its value lies in showing the modern scholar some of the techniques of the editors of the biblical narrative. It presents apocalyptic visions and perhaps supplies the missing verse in Psalm 145. Of further importance is the contribution of this book to the knowledge of the Hebrew language in the first centuries of this era: Biblical Hebrew on the one hand and philosophical Hebrew on the other. Above all, this book might enhance our understanding of the book of Revelation and the literature of that period in general; and the history of the Jews of Cochin would not be the lesser for it.
In short, the book has value, but isn’t to be regarded as a lost book of the canon.
Just a quick note. As I posted a few days ago, the paperback of my new book, The Bible Unfiltered is now available for pre-order and will ship October 4. I head a few days ago that Lexham plans to make the Kindle version of the book available on October 4.
|Capt. David D. Schindele was a Minuteman I intercontinental ballistic missile launch crew commander in the Minot Air Force Base missile field when|
he experienced a situation in which a flying object took down all 10 of the nuclear-tipped missiles he was responsible for, causing them to be unlaunchable. That was 50 years ago.
Air Force officials instructed Schindele never to speak about the incident and as far as he was concerned, it never happened. Schindele was at a launch control facility near Mohall when the incident occurred.
“It Never Happened, Volume 1: U.S. Air Force UFO Cover-up Revealed” (BUY IT HERE)is the title of Schindele’s new book about the Air Force’s cover-up of the UFO (unidentified flying objects).
‘The Close Encounters Man’ tells the unlikely story of how the government’s astrophysicist debunker became the phenomenon’s most expert defender.
|If you’re jonesing for an extraterrestrial, you should check out “The Close Encounters Man” by Mark O’Connell.O’Connell, a writer for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and founder of the UFO blog High Strangeness, set out to write “a UFO book people wouldn’t need to hide from other people.”|
He found his ideal subject in J. Allen Hynek, the astronomer hired by the United States Air Force in 1948 to debunk the reports of strange objects in the sky flooding in from across the country. Eventually Hynek broke with his handlers and became the first scientist to lend credence to the UFO phenomenon. …