Monday, 31 July 2017

Mysterious Peruvian Mummies

The news of some strange mummified bodies being found in Peru hit the internet earlier in the year. Some unnamed individuals had located six desiccated humanoid cadavers in the region of Peru near the famous Nazca Lines. This is quite close to the Atacama Desert where "Ata", the tiny humanoid investigated by Dr Steven Greer was unearthed, see: So this is not the first time signs of life possibly not of this planet have emerged in that part of the world. The people who found the mummies alerted a local researcher who in turn contacted the famous Mexican UFOlogist Jaime Maussan. The Inca civilization that rose in Peru in the 13th century used to mummify bodies, but these mummies are different. They have strangely-shaped skulls and hands with only three very long fingers. Their feet only have three toes. A hand like this turned up a few months earlier in another place in Peru, see: The bodies have been hidden in a secret location. This is as much to protect them from black market treasure hunters as covert government interference. The downside is that mummies not kept in properly controlled conditions can deteriorate. Jaime Maussan managed to get carbon dating done on the bodies and they lived between AD 240 and 450, far older than the Inca culture. The institute running the investigation agreed to invite Steve Mera along to assess the situation. Steve is a good friend of mine who has a reputation for being level-headed and does not hesitate to call male cow excrement when required. He has also been supervising the research of Don Philips, see: Steve had to travel to Cusco, a city in Peru that used to be the capital of the Inca Empire until it was defeated by the Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century. His experience is reported by Brian Allan in his article in Phenomena magazine, see: There was a tense atmosphere in the city. Steve's journey had been ridden with airport delays and once he'd arrived he was warned by his local guide not to speak openly about why he was there, including the mobile phone calls and texts he made. The Peruvian authorities were taking a keen interest in the matter. The local mainstream media were claiming it was a hoax. Then, in an occurrence that resembled a scene from an Indiana Jones movie, Steve and his team were picked up by a car which drove them to a secret location high in the Andes Mountains. He was warned to leave his mobile phone behind; alarmingly this was because of it potentially being used by intelligence agencies to track him. The first bodies they were shown were fakes and Steve said so, but it turned out this was some kind of test. More bodies were then brought in and the most interesting one was the largest, an adult female the size of a normal human, nicknamed "Maria". It was covered in a white powder that might be diatomite, a substance used in the process of making mummies.

It is vitally important to make sure that these specimens are real. It is still not long ago since the embarrassing debacle of the Roswell Slides, see: This must have been very much on Jaime Maussan's mind at the following press conference. This was held on the 11th of July in Lima, Peru's capital. The dialogue was in Spanish, but Steve had an interpreter and he periscoped live on Facebook from the venue during the breaks. However the authorities remained uncooperative and Steve's wi-fi signal mysteriously failed at certain crucial moments. "Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about." as David Icke would say. The staff at the hotel where the conference took place were also very disruptive. At the same time the mainstream media were interviewing skeptic scientists who insisted that the mummies were all fakes. I was hoping this issue of Phenomena would provide a final answer, but it is too soon to tell for sure. In Steve's view, the large mummy is real and the smaller mummies are merely effigies of some kind. They might have been placed with the real mummy during burial for ceremonial reasons. The artefacts were found in quite a sizable tomb that could indicate "Maria" had been a personage of some importance. The mythology of North and South America speaks continuously about "Gods from the sky" coming to earth and interacting with humans in ancient times, as was documented many years ago by the Swiss researcher Erich von Däniken, see: Could this be physical evidence that these old folk tales are true? This fascinating new case emerged just a short time after the aforementioned "Ata" and also the Starchild Skull from Mexico. The Paracas Skulls might also be such evidence, as well as the discoveries by Maria Wheatley. It might even turn out, with the ultimate irony, that there was a grain of truth behind the cringe-worthy story of the Roswell Slides, see background links below. It's a pity we don't yet know for sure. Steve did as good a job as he could against the hardships and hindrance he endured from the obstructive authorities. He also had altitude sickness because he comes from England and so is not used to climbing tall mountains. The good news is that he obtained all the data he needed from the mummified corpse. This will provide a full biological profile soon, so hopefully the answers are coming. I will post an update when they arrive.

Saturday, 29 July 2017

The Larry Warren Controversy- Part 19

In previous articles in this series I've mentioned several times the curious involvement of Nick Pope in the Larry Warren controversy. I would have thought such matters were way off the bottom of his priority list; however, he has been wading into the scuffle with ever increasing enthusiasm. As with Sacha Christie, his involvement began with social media posts, but now it has progressed to an article in Outer Limits Magazine. This is the second of two articles he has contributed to Issue 9 of the magazine and the one in question can be found on page 58, see: It's called "Theft at East Gate"; that's the kind of pun Sacha normally comes up with and I can't help wondering if she devised it for him. Nevertheless the text itself does appear to be in Nick's own style so I don't deny he wrote that himself. Two points initially struck me during my first reading of this screed. Firstly, Nick makes a series of factual claims: Larry Warren forged documents, Larry Warren traded counterfeit rock and roll memorabilia, Larry Warren faked a photograph of himself with John Lennon, Larry Warren made threats of violence, Larry Warren purloined elements of his story from genuine witnesses, Larry Warren is not a military veteran and only completed his first phase of training, Larry Warren fooled Peter Robbins into believing him and Peter has now admitted it. All these claims I have examined in this series of articles as well as two radio interviews, see: and:, and a HPANWO TV film with Larry: My view is that they are simply false. I explain calmly, politely and rationally why I think that. What Nick writes in OLM is totally unoriginal. The second thing that strikes me is the tone; Nick uses a lot of angry rhetoric. The following phrases jump out at me as I skim the pages: "reflects a deeper misogyny"... "Shame on them"... "final unravelling"... "final nail in the coffin for Warren's credibility"... "half-dozen or so people dishonestly trying to spin events"... "took their beliefs and exploited them"... "shamefully chose to ignore it"... "I and many others find particularly offensive"... and it goes on. Nick Pope never mentions my name, but I am pretty sure most of these comments are primarily aimed at me. Excessive rhetoric is a sign of a weak argument. It is often used as a substitute for an empirical case where none exists. This kind of language is essentially an act of moral blackmail against the reader. It is warning them: "You'd better agree with me or you are a #BadPerson just like Larry Warren!" See here for more information:

Nick Pope even claims that there is basically no room for debate at all; no valid space for disagreement. He says: "These Warren supporters, essentially just his friends and family trying to keep the story afloat, are trying to suggest that there is still a debate to be had about this... This isn't the kind of 'controversy' or 'split' that sometimes divides UFOlogy. The matter is beyond debate." And he goes on to compare Larry's story to the Hitler diaries and the Piltdown Man hoaxes; and he urges Larry to confess. Whenever somebody tells you that there is no debate to be had, they are essentially shutting down the discussion. They are excluding all people who differ with them, regardless of their reasons, from the dialogue. This is not only unethical and anti-intellectual; it is also another symptom of a weak evidence-free case. There is never any justification at all to deny somebody who disagrees with you the right of reply. I am perfectly willing to debate anybody... anybody, who thinks Larry Warren is a fraud, so long as they behave in a civil manner. If you go to Part 18, the previous article in this series, you'll see I do just that in the comments box with "MH". I refuse to engage with the central four members of the anti-Larry Warren contingent, but this is not because of their opinions; it is because of their conduct. To close the door on dissent is to fear the exposure rational peer-review will bring to what you know deep down is a logically unsustainable position. Interestingly Nick also compares Larry's story to the Roswell Slides. He says: "There is a parallel to be drawn between the Larry Warren fraud and the Roswell Slides fiasco. In both cases the wider UFO community were polarized until a small and disparate group of researchers came forward to expose the falsehood." The Roswell Slides are a totally different situation to Larry Warren. Larry's testimony is not an obvious deception that was only promoted by a handful of people in Mexico and was then proved to be wrong literally minutes after it was published. The Roswell Slides were not thoroughly examined and found to be true for over thirty years and were written about in one of the most popular UFOlogy books ever published. The Roswell Slides were not first called into question by a single person straight after they and the owner had had a very acrimonious personal bust-up. The idea that the Roswell Slides might be faked is not exclusively promoted by people who have been either flattered or intimidated into submission by that one person. The solitary piece of new information Nick tables is that Larry Warren was supposedly rumbled in 2000 by the journalist Georgina Bruni, author of the early classic among RFI books, You Can't Tell the People, see: Georgina Bruni is not available to give her side of the story; she sadly passed away in 2008. However, Larry has made another video with Tino to give his version. Nick portrays Larry and Bruni as bitter enemies, but they were actually quite good friends, see: Nick includes in the article a profile of the future: "Where do we go from here? What are the wider implications for the credibility of the Rendlesham Forest Incident and, indeed, the credibility of UFOlogy? What lessons can be learned?" I see the situation very differently from Nick for obvious reasons. He ends that section with these chilling words: "The UFO community will be able to say with justifiable pride that lessons were learned from this experience and that they weren't afraid to clean house. Because, frankly, if UFOlogy doesn't learn to police itself then nobody else will." UFOlogy already has four self-appointed policemen, people who are willing to carpet-bomb the entire community into fragments if only they can destroy their hated personal enemy; and it is personal, nothing more. Nick cannot have failed to hear the real tone these people use, the behaviour they have exhibited, and understand their true motivations. Nick, your article is nothing but a piece of propaganda. There is a brief editorial at the head of the first page which restates Outer Limits Magazine's neutral position in the controversy. They invite Larry Warren to write his own account of events for them to publish. About time too and I look forward to that! Maybe the inevitable and predictable response from the LWHC to Larry's own piece will give the journal a more enlightened viewpoint on this conflict.

Friday, 28 July 2017

Down's Syndrome Termination Agenda

When I was a hospital porter I sometimes took a bus home after my early shift and I often ended up sitting next to a man called Martin I knew at the hospital who worked as a canteen server in Catering. He was a short and stocky man with a slightly hunched back. His eyes were slanted and close together and he had protruding lips and an oversized tongue which impaired his speech somewhat. Although he was a grown man he was clearly retarded and childlike; yet we used to have some great conversations. Like a child, he often had extraordinary insights that might escape somebody with higher intelligence who is more conditioned by conformity. He only worked part-time, but was a diligent employee. The other catering staff spoke highly of him. He lived with his mother and father who loved him dearly. Martin had Down's syndrome, a condition which affects some sixty thousand people in Britain. It is caused by an extra chromosome being produced in the genome at conception. Babies born with Down's syndrome suffer numerous mental and physical handicaps such as deformed hands and feet, problems with their heart, lungs and digestive system, and vision or hearing difficulties. The condition is incurable and there is no way to prevent it. It is not hereditary, in other words it doesn't run in families. It emerges in the same proportions across all racial and cultural groups. It strikes randomly and the only risk factor appears to be the age of the parents, especially the mother. A mother who bears a child at the end of her reproductive life, her late forties or early fifties, has a three percent chance of the baby being Down's; yet with a twenty year old mother that statistic is only 0.05%. Down's syndrome people have always existed and they always will. Despite their health problems, with the right care, people with Down's syndrome can have a good quality of life. They usually live until late middle age.

I think my memory of speaking with Martin added to the disquiet I felt at the weekend when I spoke to a fellow delegate at the Bases at the Black Swan conference (See here for details: She and her partner have a daughter who is aged about seven and has Down's syndrome. They showed me some photos of her. She is a blonde-haired little girl who was smiling broadly for the camera. The mother clearly loves her daughter, yet she told me that if her doctor had had his way her little girl would never even have been born. There is no cure for Down's syndrome, as I said, but mothers can have tests during pregnancy that can diagnose the condition. However, if the test comes out positive the only way to prevent the mother giving birth to a Down's baby is to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore these tests are only usually taken by couples for whom termination is an option. The mother can have blood tests in the second trimester of pregnancy that can give a statistical probability of the risk of the baby being Down's, but cannot tell for sure. A mother whose result is high probability is then offered a second, far more positive but far more invasive form of screening via procedures called amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling; however this involves sticking a needle into the uterus and it carries a 0.5 to one percent change of miscarriage from the test alone. This official government webpage gives details: The fellow delegate told me that she had been called into the clinic by her obstetrician and told that the results for her quadruple test indicated a high risk of Down's syndrome. What surprised her was that at no point was she told by her midwife that she was even being given the quadruple test in the first place. The midwife had take blood samples from the delegate, but she never once asked if the delegate consented to the quadruple test. Interestingly, the midwife in the video on the government webpage above says that secondary tests, the amniocentesis and CVS, would be done after "counselling and proper consent". Does this mean that primary testing does not require proper consent? The obstetrician said as much to the fellow delegate. He told her that all patients in NHS maternity services are automatically screened for Down's syndrome hormonal markers as a matter of routine. This is not what the above webpage says; in fact it states: "You do not need to have this screening test; it is your choice whether or not to have it. Some people want to find out the chance of their baby having these conditions, and some do not." The doctor then went on to recommend amniocentesis or CVS to the fellow delegate and told her that if it came out positive then she would be offered a termination. The doctor suggested this immediately, while his patient was still reeling from the worrying news of the test result. He never gave her the opportunity to recover and think it over. The fellow delegate was not happy about this yet the doctor persisted. Pretty soon it became clear that the words "recommend" and "offered" were to be interpreted in their broadest possible sense. The more she argued the more insistent the doctor became. He started warning her about the difficulties of raising a Down's syndrome child, the health problems the child would inevitably suffer, the stress that being a mother to the child would have on her own mental health and the risk of her marriage breaking up as a result etc. This was obviously a tactic to make her feel guilty. Strangely she was never asked if she would be willing to give birth to the baby and have it adopted out; this used to be an option when I started out in portering. My fellow delegate was not persuaded and began to resent the doctor's tone. She told him she wanted to go home, but the doctor replied that he wished to "continue the consultation." It was literally almost a foot-in-the-door situation. He kept talking to her on the way out, becoming almost manic in his resolve. Luckily the fellow delegate was made of stern enough stuff to resist him. This brought back a memory of a conversation I had with a patient once during the early years when I served in maternity. I've often found patients will confide in porters in a way they will not with their doctors and nurses; therefore a hospital porter often picks up some amazing stories. This post-natal patient and her husband had been in a very similar situation to my fellow delegate, although this was in the early 1990's. She had given the baby up for adoption and her sister and brother-in-law, who could not have children of their own, were now the baby's legal parents. However her midwives and obstetrician were "not happy" with her decision and tried to talk her out of it in the same way they had my fellow delegate. Again there was this pressure goading and cajoling her into having a termination. The NHS webpage above says nothing about this kind of practice.
It makes me wonder if the British government has a covert agenda that is similar to "Aktion T4". This was a programme that ran in Germany from 1938 to 1941 in which people in sanatoria who were deemed "incurably sick" were given what the Nazi regime called Gnadentod. German is a difficult language to translate into English, but this basically means "mercy killing". Over seventy thousand people were murdered, mostly children, on official orders from the governmental "Committee for the Scientific Registering of Serious Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses". This was done in secret to prevent mass resistance, but at the same time Joseph Goebbels' propaganda ministry released messages in the media to try and alter public opinion. The above poster says: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the people's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too!" Some of these extermination centres still exist today and are preserved as museums. They have cellars where people would be locked inside and made to breathe poison gas... Of course we're far more civilized in modern Britain; the programme is refined, clinical and carried out in NHS hospitals by fatherly doctors and smiling nurses. This is a part of what is known as "eugenics", see background links below for more detail. Although, as I said, Down's syndrome is not hereditary; it is an inevitable part of human reproduction. So why is there this imperative from the authorities to eliminate people with it? Some readers might not have a problem with the screening process if you accept that abortion can be ethical. I do not; I am staunchly pro-life, see:; but even if you disagree with me about abortion in general, I'd be surprised if you are not also disturbed by the formula of subjecting pregnant mothers, who are already vulnerable and malleable due to the shock of the test results, to indoctrination like this. If what we are witnessing here is a covert extermination agenda, it might be because Down's syndrome people have an effect on society that is detrimental, from the point of view of the elite. Down's people can be very amiable and loving. They are doting towards their parents, other family members and pets etc. As I found out from my discussions on the bus with Martin, they can be very perceptive and wise. A married couple who are both Down's recently celebrated their twenty-second wedding anniversary, see: This Down's man, Robby Hail, is an ace American football player whose career mirrors Adam Sandler's character in the comedy film The Waterboy: I'm not a fan of the sport, but I still respect his achievement. Many Down's people have jobs and are highly productive. They go to special colleges and learn skills. There are even actors and musicians who have Down's syndrome. These stories warm people's hearts in a very special way. Could Down's youths be "star children" of the kind Mary Rodwell talks about, see: Maybe it is this very positive energy that Down's people can bring to the world that is such a threat to the future society envisaged by the malevolent elite. They need to weed them out as soon as they pop up. I find the notion that people with Down's syndrome are somehow unworthy of life utterly obscene. However, that is the direction the healthcare system appears to be moving in. How long will it be before the antenatal tests for Down's will be compulsory, as will termination in the event of a positive test? Down's will just be the start. My mother had rubella when she was carrying me and the doctor's told her I might be retarded. Luckily I wasn't, but would I be killed before birth if I had been conceived in this new eugenic utopia? We need to put a stop to the Down's syndrome termination agenda now.

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

Richard Dawkins Banned Again

Richard Dawkins has blundered into controversy again. Through no fault of his own, his naive staggering pathway has once more led him into a collision with twenty-teens social realpolitik. This is not the first time he has inadvertently stirred up a hornets' nest and in the background links I relate some other examples. He was banned from the NorthEast Conference on Science and Skepticism after Tweeting an anti-feminist satirical animation. He also decided to plant his flag with the most hardened Remoaners and demand Britain stays in the European Union despite the result of the Brexit referendum; otherwise he'll scream and scream until he's sick. This time it's a slightly different situation. He was due to give a live presentation at a congregational church in Berkeley, California USA hosted by KPFA Radio, a local radio station. The event was about Dawkins' new book Science in the Soul- Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist. However the hosts cancelled the event because of, once again, Dawkins' social media activities. He made some Tweets that the hosts considered Islamophobic and they said that they: "cancelled a book event with Richard Dawkins when members of our community brought our attention to Dawkins' abusive speech against Muslims... We serve a broad and diverse community, including many Muslims living under threat of persecution and violence in the current political context. Islamophobic rhetoric stokes that threat. While Mr Dawkins has every right to express his views, KPFA has every right not to sponsor and profit from an event spreading them. That is what we’ve done." Source: Dawkins denies this charge. A statement from his organization said that it was: "stunned and deeply dismayed by the cancellation of an event with Prof. Richard Dawkins... KPFA not only cancelled a standing engagement to have Richard speak on his new book... but did so without contacting him first or giving him the opportunity to respond to their unfounded allegations. The station alleged without evidence that the world renowned evolutionary biologist had engaged in 'abusive speech,' against Islam, a justification that we consider absurd... For KPFA to suddenly break its commitment to Richard and the hundreds of people who were so looking forward to seeing and hearing him is unconscionable, and the baseless accusation that Richard has engaged in ‘abusive speech’ is a betrayal of the values KPFA has, until now, been known for.... 'The idea that I have engaged in abusive speech against Islam is preposterous, which even the most rudimentary fact-checking by KPFA would have made clear,' said Prof. Dawkins. 'I have indeed strongly condemned the misogyny, homophobia, and violence of Islamism, of which Muslims, particularly Muslim women, are the prime victims. I make no apologies for denouncing those oppressive cruelties, and I will continue to do so.'" Source:

Dawkins makes it clear that there is a distinction between Islam, the ancient religion; Muslims, people who believe in it; and Islamism, the recent political movement inspired by it. He says that he used to like KPFA and was a regular listener during the two years that he lived in Berkeley. They have an admirable social conscience and they're normally good at fact checking, but this time they have refused to produce any source material or explain their actions other than with a groundless assertion. Another feature that has recurred and has clearly upset Richard Dawkins is the lack of any dialogue. KPFA made this decision unilaterally without any discussion at all with Dawkins first. The first thing he knew about it was when he received an email notifying him that he'd been cancelled. The same was done by NECSS last year, see background links. I sympathize there because the same was done to me, see: and: Most of Dawkins' atheo-skeptic colleagues have spoken out in support of their friend. Steven Pinker said that KPFA: "have handed a precious gift to the political right, who can say that left-leaning media outlets enforce mindless conformity to narrow dogma, and are no longer capable of thinking through basic intellectual distinctions." Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that KPFA's actions have simply revealed that the left-leaning media are exactly that. You won't often hear this from me: Richard Dawkins is completely right. This is censorship by politically correct cowards who are so scared of offending people that they hardly dare breathe. Why should Islam be ring-fenced from criticism? The answer I would give is very different to the one Dawkins would or even the anti-SJW community in general; it is the role Islam has been manipulated to play in contemporary geopolitics, see here for more details: Nevertheless the free speech issue is the same from all our positions. I hope that KPFA will reconsider and rescind in the same way NECSS did last year. They will if they've got any awareness of their public image and they wish to avoid a good public shaming. They deserve every word of what people have said about them.

Monday, 24 July 2017

Roswell 70 T-Shirts- Still on Sale

Tino has decided to put up the remaining Roswell 70 T-shirts on private sale. There are still a dozen or so left following the Roswell 70 event a fortnight ago, see background links for details. They are available in medium, large and extra-large. The XXL ones sold out. The original design had to be changed slightly to remove the coloured graphic on the back image. It now says in just plain text: "HPANWO- Hospital Porters Against the New World Order". If you would like one, please email me at: and I'll arrange payment and shipment for you. They are £10 plus postage and packing. These T-shirts are a unique souvenir of an historical anniversary that will never happen again. After they are sold out this time no more will be produced; so grab them while you can!

Tuesday, 18 July 2017

Female Doctor Who- No Objections Allowed

This article is a follow-up to this HPANWO TV on video I made: It is now forty-eight hours since we learnt that the next Doctor will be a woman, the actress (I insist on using that un-PC word) Jodie Whittacker. Since I made that video the response from those in favour of the Doctor Who producers' choice has been very clear: there is no recourse at all for anybody who disagrees. The headline in the Mirror: "BBC faces Sexist backlash..." is a classic and on social media there have been truly sadistic and vainglorious gloating posts which go along the lines of: "Suck it up, man-babies!" and "Enjoying watching men having tantrums!" with the reply: "And I'm bathing in their male tears!" Ironically these are the same people who a year ago were behaving like babies themselves over Brexit. Sargon of Akkad has lived up to his usual standards in getting to drips with this crisis: The Gah-ridian is predictably jumping for joy, see: Why has it taken so long to get here? Because of sexists and man-babies; why do you think?... We who dislike this eventuality are being told in no uncertain terms that we have no place in the dialogue. We can be happy about having a female Doctor or we are #BadPeople; those are the only two choices. Stefan Molyneux said something very interesting on a recent call-in show near the end. He says: "If you want to know who the livestock are, which group are not allowed to get angry?" The answer is of course, white heterosexual males, see: The Doctor issue is only one part of a larger more strategic trend that involves the removal of WHM people from society. Every genocide begins this way: visual exclusion only, omission from the media, positions of office and public spaces. It never involves cattle trucks and ovens on day-one. Why is this happening? Is it because the presence of WHM's in the world is somehow fundamentally inimical to the New World Order? Possibly, but if so I have no idea why. The Illuminati alone must know that. Also, from what I have seen the Illuminati are attacking other races and groups as well in different ways. The most likely answer is that the war on WHM's, although a real thing, has an ulterior motive that works to the equal detriment of non-WHM's too. In fact when you look at it deep down, who is really suffering the most here? As Molyneux points out in the same show, feminists are some of the most miserable people in the Western world. The reaction they have shown to the casting of Jodie Whittacker is not that of people who are happy. The only joy they are feeling is the hateful glee at what they perceive as the destitution of their enemies. In the background links I explain in more detail about how cultural Marxism is a psychological weapon designed to attack us all, men and women, black and white, gay and straight.

As Sargon and his panel explain, there are far fewer WHM people weeping with despair than they would like. The opposition has struck back with some amusing memes. One shows the TARDIS embedded in the wall of a building with the caption: "Women drivers". I myself posted, purely in jest, that I was making the central protagonist in Roswell Revealed a man and changing her name from Siobhan to "Simon", see: A few people have quipped that Miss Marple should become "Mr Marple"! The point being, as I detail in the background film, that I would hate to see characters I am used to being women changed into men just as much. I would also despise any remake of Eddie Murphy's movies in which a white man played his role. The new Doctor Who is going to be a total flop; its viewing figures are going to plummet. Conceptual fiction tends to be very bad fiction and when it is left-wing and/or feminist it is even worse. The BBC will still carry on making the series though; it will be hyped beyond anything we've ever seen before. Mzzzzzzz Whittacker will eventual regenerate into another woman. The reason for this is because their motive is purely political not artistic. Also they know the BBC is a public bureaucracy that is bankrolled by the state. They're not answerable to advertizers; they get their licence fee no matter what they do (Although not for much longer, see: They also know that not one mainstream critic will dare to give the new series a bad review because of the fear of being labelled a "misogynist!" This was a dirty trick used by the writers of Get Out, see: You can never convince a true zealot, but I can address those who are unsure. Do you like being told you have to agree or else you're a "man-baby"? Do you like being thought of as "EEEEEEEvil!"? Does it make you feel better to hate thirty-five percent* of the entire population; or if you are one of those thirty-five percent, does it feel good to hate yourself? A female Doctor Who is such a blatant aberration of natural standards that it may be that the manipulators have overplayed their hand this time. I hope so.
(*It is impossible to know for sure what proportion of people are truly WHM because there is a sliding scale of bisexuality. 35% is an estimate.)

Sunday, 16 July 2017

36 Arguments for the Existence of God

I read this book is a series of rushes over six months because of other things I was doing. This meant I had to recap when I began each reading. 36 Arguments for the Existence of God is a philosophical novel by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein and it references a lot of her own upbringing. She is an atheist, but was born into an orthodox Jewish family and her brother is a rabbi. The story is divided into thirty-six chapters in an almost Wilsonian manner, except that in RAW's case it was the number twenty-three. Each chapter is called "Argument from..." with a qualifier such as "Argument from Dappled Things", "Argument from Prime Numbers" etc. The story centres around an academic psychologist called Cass Seltzer, a man who has written a highly successful book that has become a "new atheist" classic, in a similar way to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, see: This has made him hot property in the media. He is always on TV and radio shows debating with religious believers; the "God vs no God" format that has become such a common popular meme. The plot then intersperses with flashbacks of his younger life when he was a student under an eccentric professor called Jonas Elijah Klapper who is a "spiritual-but-not-religious" person and is an expert on all religions and mythologies. Cass is from a hardline closed Jewish community which is incredibly strict, almost a Jewish equivalent of the Amish, but he is dating a girl called Roz who is a Reform Jew and an agnostic. They pay a visit to the community and come across a small boy who is a mathematical prodigy. The problem is that the boy is also the son of the Valdemare Rebbe, the leader of this very traditional Jewish society. It's a world in which people wear the same clothes, eat only kosher food and on the Sabbath, from every Friday evening until sunrise on Sunday morning, will not even wipe their bottoms after going to the toilet because that counts as work which is forbidden. As the boy grows up he has to choose between his predestined role to be the spiritual ruler of his people or to leave and study maths at a university, which is his passion. What's interesting is that Prof. Klapper has an almost cultic hold over his small group of students. One of the characters is an older man who befriends Cass who has been a postgraduate student of Klapper's for over a decade. He simply can't break away and leave his classes. Cass succeeds in doing so and becomes an atheist. There is a lot of humour in the book, especially around the idiosyncrasies of Prof. Klapper. Some of the characters are annoying, such as Cass' girlfriend in later life who is a rather obnoxious feminist called Lucinda Mandelbaum. She is a master mathematician who is known as the "Goddess of Game Theory", but still sees herself as a deprived victim, despite her success, simply because she is a "woman!"; and therefore she feels justified in mistreating her male colleagues. The story ends with a description of a "God vs no God" debate that is very vivid and strikes a bell for anybody, like me, who enjoys watching this ultimate verbal spectator sport. The appendix of the novel actually contains the famous three dozen real philosophical arguments for the existence of God and their rebuttals, see: Although of course anybody who follows this controversy will know that the rebuttals themselves have counter-rebuttals, counter-counter rebuttals and counter-counter-counter rebuttals ad infinitum. Does God exist or not? People have been arguing about this question throughout all of history, so if you expect a single paperback book to provide a final answer, you'll be disappointed. It was interesting to read about the atheist vs believer mindset from a Jewish perspective. Judaism has a far older and richer tradition in discussions like this than Christianity or Islam does. It is cleverly written and the author has a well-developed and amusing style that I can appreciate as a fellow fiction writer. Here are two videos of the author: and: The book can be purchased here: An interesting bit of trivia is that Rebecca Newberger Goldstein is married to Stephen Pinker, another famous atheo-skeptic pop-philosopher, see:

Saturday, 15 July 2017

The Larry Warren Controversy- Part 18

Sacha Christie has published a new article for the first time in over three weeks. It simply reproduces a statement by Steve LaPlume, a former colleague of Larry Warren's in the 81st Security Police Squadron, and then Larry's response to it. Her only commentary is to wish Steve LaPlume luck and invite readers to put a caption on Larry's reply, presumably a deprecating one, see: LaPlume came up in Part 16 of this series where Peter Robbins claimed that Larry misquoted him in the research for Left at East Gate.

Larry has appeared on two programmes of the Top Secret News radio show.
These are some of the best programmes ever about the Larry Warren controversy. One strange new accusation made against Larry is that he wrote graffiti on the "lemon squeezer", a sculpture erected in a clearing in Rendlesham Forest by the Forestry Commission as part of their "UFO Trail", see here for more details: The accusation came from the above photo taken during the highly successful camping holiday with the Birmingham UFO Group that I talk about in the previous article. You can clearly see Larry posing next to the sculpture and the words: "Jimi Hendrix- only $30,000" are scrawled on the artwork. However, as Larry explains, there is no evidence that Larry himself actually defaced the sculpture. Also the damage appears to have been carried out using pink lipstick. Larry's fashion consciousness tends to lean towards motorcycle-themed T-shirts and leather or denim jackets. If Larry owns any pink lipstick then this is an element of his life he has kept private from his friends... and I shall say no more because I do not wish to pry. What's more, does lipstick graffiti really count as vandalism? It is very easy to wash off and in fact will fade of its own accord before long; indeed, immediately if it rains. The first show includes an interview with Joe Montaldo, the person who carried out the voice-stress analysis study on Larry which Larry passed. This is the next best thing to the polygraph and Larry has challenged anybody to subject him to a polygraph test. In the second programme Larry is joined by Gary Heseltine. Gary has been doing a lot of essential research behind the scenes and he speaks openly for the first time about this subject here. I highly recommend both these shows.

Friday, 14 July 2017

Ben Emlyn-Jones on the Kev Baker Show 23

I have been interviewed again on the Kev Baker Show (aka MrGlasgowTruther) on Truth Frequency Radio, see here for the podcast:
And here for the illustrated YouTube version:
Subjects discussed include: Are NASA about to announce life on Mars?, children enslaved on Mars, breaking news about an alien mummy in Peru and much much more.
See here for my previous appearance on the Kev Baker Show:

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Wiltshire Police on Crop Circles

The Wiltshire Police force has released an official statement about crop circles. It is quite rare for state authorities even to mention crop circles:

"With summer well and truly underway we have seen an increase of crop circles appearing across the county. They might seem harmless but they actually have a huge negative impact on the hardworking landowners and farmers whose crops are damaged. Creating a crop circle is CRIMINAL DAMAGE and an offence.
The damage caused means a loss in revenue to the farmer and landowner. They also have to deal with civil trespass issues on their land after a crop circle has been created when members of the public come without permission, to view the circle. It has also been known for individuals to pose as part of a charity or as the landowner at the site of crop circles and attempt to take 'donations' from people viewing the crop circle.
We urge all farmers and landowners if they have had a crop circle on their land to report it to us on 101 so it can be recorded. Often after a crop circle appears, individuals will arrive with a drone to photograph it. Take note of any vehicles, their registration plates, and any individuals and pass this information to the police.
If a circle is created on your land make sure you tell the crop circle community if you decide to allow/ not allow access to the general public, and if you intend to cut the circle out. This should reduce unwanted visitors.
There are 3 places to do this:
We also ask the public to help support our rural communities by reporting any suspicious vehicles, behaviour or people in crop fields to police on 101 they may be attempting to create a crop circle and committing criminal damage. If you can see a crop circle creation in progress, call police on 999.

Matthew Williams, the well-known UFOlogist, was once arrested for trespass and criminal damage. He is the only person so far to have been successfully prosecuted for crop circle-making, a fact he wears on his sleeve with enormous pride, see: (He is a scathing critic of my technical film-making methods too, see: The police statement mentions drones and that probably refers directly to Matt who has a drone which he uses to film crop circles although there is no proof that this necessarily means that the circles are the work of Matt's own team. Some of his visuals are spectacular and he filmed the title sequence for Sandra Daroy's Awakening of 12 Strands, see: The obvious omission from the police report is the paranormal and UFO element to the crop circle phenomenon. They make the assumption that crop circles are all made by people using conventional circle-making methods, wooden planks and tape measures etc. This is not the case and in the background links I explain why. I also recommend Richard D Hall's documentary Crop Circles- the Hidden Truth, see: The police say that if we see a crop circle creation in progress we should call 999. The problem is, in some cases the police will need more than a squad car to catch the culprits. A space rocket might be a more effective start.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Ben Emlyn-Jones live at the Swansea UFO Network 3

I will be speaking again at a meeting of the Swansea UFO Network on Tuesday the 27th of February 2018. The event starts at 8 PM and the venue is The New Lodge, Alexandra Road, Gorseinon, Swansea, SA4-4PE, Wales. See here for more details:
My lecture will be entitled: The Nottinghamshire Roswell. The Roswell Incident is not the only one of its kind; in fact events like it happen regularly all over the world. In the UK a strange occurrence took place in Nottinghamshire in November 1987. Could we be looking at the "Nottinghamshire Roswell"? See here for details of my previous appearance at SUFON:

Monday, 10 July 2017

Ben Emlyn-Jones at AwakeCon

I will be speaking at the upcoming AwakeCon event organized by my friend and fellow researcher Tajinder Gill. This has been rescheduled and expanded into a two-day event with additional speakers after being previously postponed, see:
Along with myself and most of the speakers previously booked you can see talks by David Shayler, Cathi Morgan, Andrew Johnson, Christine Hart and Carl James.
The event will be held on Saturday the 11th and Sunday the 12th of November. Tickets cost £50 for the whole weekend, a very reasonable price; or £28 for a single day. The venue is in a charming little English village: Medstead Village Hall, Roe Downs Road, Medstead, Hampshire, GU34 5LG. See here for details:
See here for a HPANWO Radio interview with Tajinder about the event: (coming soon)
See here for a HPANWO Radio interview with Tajinder and Sarah Adams:

Saturday, 8 July 2017

Happy World Disclosure Day 2017!

July the 8th is World ET Disclosure Day, and was awarded that status by the Paradigm Research Group in 2010. This is because it was on July the 8th 1947 that General Roger Ramey held a press conference in his office in Fort Worth, Texas USA where he put on display some wooden sticks and some loose, crumpled pieces of aluminium foil and told the world's media that this is what Major Jesse Marcel, chief intelligence officer of the Roswell Army Air Force Base, had mistaken for a UFO. He was lying. Today, seventy years later, the Government are still lying. Many believe that this is the day that the decision was made to institute what Stephen Bassett calls the "Truth Embargo." Reporters were descending like locusts on Fort Worth and New Mexico and the Government was considering whether to continue with the original "Flying Disk" story, and so come clean that UFO's exist, or to cover it up; they opted for the latter. On the day Disclosure happens that will become World Disclosure Day, but until then it is July the 8th. This year it is special because it is the seventieth anniversary and I've organized an event in Oxford to mark it, the only one of its kind in Britain, see:

Friday, 7 July 2017

UFO Truth Magazine- Issue 25

UFO Truth Magazine Issue 25 is now available. It can be purchased on this page as a single copy, but please subscribe and save money if you want to read it regularly, see:
Issue 24 includes an article in my column, a review of the new book UFO's Today- 70 Years of Lies, Disinformation, and Government Cover-Up by Dr Irena Scott. See here for a HPANWO Radio interview with the author:

Also you will find in Issue 25: seventy years since the Kenneth Arnold sighting, newly discovered British government UFO investigation, Australian UFO photographs on the beach and much much more.
Also in this HPANWO Show programme I interview the UFO Truth's editor Gary Heseltine:
See here for details on UFO Truth Magazine Issue 24:

Wednesday, 5 July 2017

The Larry Warren Controversy- Part 17

See here for essential background:
In the above background link Peter Robbins makes a statement about his split from his former friend and co-author Larry Warren. The statement is mostly about personal matters, not factual issues, but it does make Peter's position fairly unequivocal. Therefore I was surprised to hear from delegates at the Roswell UFO Festival that Peter had turned up there and been given a stall in the merchandise alley. Somebody took a few photographs; and they weren't secret ones snapped from behind a corner. Peter looks quite happy to pose for them. As you can see, he is sitting there signing copies of Left at East Gate perfectly normally, cheerful as ever, as if nothing had happened. In his statement Peter never said that he was withdrawing LAEG from print. He responded to a recommendation from Nick Pope to do so by saying: "Nick Pope's suggestion that it be taken out of print because it is filled with lies enraged him (Larry Warren) and didn’t make me any too happy either... Any decision to end Left At East Gate’s twenty year-long production run has nothing to do with what Larry, or Nick, or I want. In 2005 Larry Warren and I signed a contract with Cosimo Press, a small print-on-demand publishing company in New York City... For me it has remained a point of pride to know that it remains in print. I’m sure that Larry would never dream of informing our publisher of any of the matters touched upon here, but he (the publisher) more than most people not only has a right to know what has been going on, it would be completely immoral not to do so; the unhappy job of which of course falls to me. If he, after reading this, which he most certainly will, then decides to drop the title, Larry will only have himself to blame for it." After reading these words I find it baffling that Peter would ask for, or accept if it was offered to him, a book-signing at the Roswell UFO Festival. If Peter has decided to keep the book on sale then naturally I would expect it to remain available from the publisher, bookshops and on sales databases. Peter doesn't discuss details of the contract, but he might need the publisher's explicit permission to recall the title. The publisher might decide to keep it on the market against the author's will, or at least sell off any remaining copies already printed for the retail arena. Nevertheless, surely no publisher can demand that Peter continue to promote the book personally by hosting book-signings at conferences; the decision to do that must have been Peter's alone. Why would he do that when just a few weeks earlier he had written a piece denouncing his co-author and, as a result, repudiating most of the information in LAEG? What's more, based on these photographs, he appears to be signing the books enthusiastically. It's impossible to know Peter's motives for sure, but this smacks of indecision and uncertainty. His behaviour is totally contrary to his professed opinions. This must raise the obvious question: If Peter is so unsure about his position then it calls into question his entire statement. How can he expect anybody to take it seriously again after this?
I must pay homage to Dave Hodrien, chairman of the Birmingham UFO Group. Dave is a good friend and fellow researcher; and I'm even more proud to say that than usual after he spoke openly about Larry's detractors' position with plenty of necessary sceptcism with a C. He went camping in Rendlesham Forest to celebrate ten years of BUFOG and Larry, Heidi, Tino and many others went along too. I regret not being able to attend myself. As a result of his statements Dave has been predictably attacked by the anti-Larry Warren mob on a personal level. This was made worse by his prominence in the UFOlogy community. Nevertheless he has stood his ground, therefore displaying considerable courage. He even attempted to debate with them, but of course he was not given a fair hearing; see here for my recent HPANWO Radio interview with Dave: I hope he will set an example to others. There are a lot of people who know the truth and are afraid to speak out because of the anti-Larry Warren terror campaign. At the recent UFO Truth Magazine Southern Conference 2017, see:, I spoke to a friend of mine who has so far publicly vacillated over the matter. I said to him: "This thing against Larry Warren; it's bullshit. It's all bullshit. Totally! From start to finish." He responded by replying without any hesitation or doubt: "I know, Ben." If he knows, then I urge him to say so out loud. He is not alone and there are a growing number of people who will stand by him.

Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Child Slavery on Mars

Alex Jones has made an attempt to go back to his roots, but he ended up digging much deeper. Alex Jones was one of the media pioneers of the conspirasphere when he launched his Infowars radio and TV network in the 1990's. His broadcasting style of brashly shouting has become his trademark. He protested against the Bilderberg Group, against the cover-up of the Oklahoma City bombing and Bohemian Grove. He has subjected various people in power to "bullhorning"; this is where he would turn up outside their home or office and yell angrily at them through a megaphone. Since about 2012 his views have changed. He has returned to a more conventional political focus and has become one of the stars of the emergent "Alt-right" phenomenon. He has declared his support for President Donald Trump and even interviewed him on his show. As a result he's been predictably labelled a "fascist!" and a purveyor of "fake news!" Even when he was a conspiracy theorist, Jones made an effort not to be associated with what he considers the most extreme elements in the movement such as those dealing with UFO's, reptilians and the supernatural, believing that they repel the public from real issues. This led him into conflict with many people such as David Icke, see:

Last Thursday Alex Jones did a programme on the harrowing subject of organized paedophilia where he interviewed Robert David Steele, a former intelligence officer with the CIA. Steele tells Alex that not only do the elite harvest body parts and chemicals from children's corpses, but that they take the children into space. He said: "This may strike your listeners as way out, but we actually believe that there is a colony on Mars. It is populated by children who were kidnapped and sent into space on a twenty year ride so that once they get to Mars they have no alternative but to be slaves on the Mars colony." Alex was obviously alarmed about what Steele had just said because of how it might affect his reputation on the Alt-right and internet media scene. He interrupts Steele and changes the subject; he says: "I know ninety percent of the NASA missions are secret... but then it goes off into all that and that's the kind of thing the media jumps on." Source: The media did indeed jump on it, for example see: Sargon of Akkad, aka the YouTube presenter Carl Benjamin, has also made a video about it: The most astonishing development from this is that NASA made an official response. A spokesman for the American space agency called Guy Webster, who is a real expert of theirs, told The Daily Beast: "There are no humans on Mars. There are active rovers on Mars. There was a rumour going around last week that there weren't. There are... But there are no humans... There's only one stupid rumour on the Internet?" Why on earth would NASA even think of commenting on this matter? It took them thirty years even to make an effort to disprove the fake moon landing theorists, see: You'd think this would be way beneath them. Sargon puts this down to the influence of the new independent media, something for which I assume he himself would rejoice at. He says: "It's funny how powerful they consider Alex Jones to be though... Come on! Nobody needs to say anything about this.", see link above. However, in my view we should take Mr Steele's accusations seriously. Children do disappear, in vast numbers; that's a sad fact of life. Who is taking them and where do they go? We should also take seriously the presence of a secret space programme that has been far more successful than the one publicly admitted. The public space programme has sent rockets into low earth orbit while the secret space programme has been using advanced technology such as free energy and antigravity propulsion. I have good reason to think that there are in fact human bases on Mars and other heavenly bodies. See the background links below for more details. Combine these two notions and the accusations by Robert David Steele are perfectly feasible. If the shadow government really is kidnapping children and sending them to be slaves in outer space colonies then don't the people deserve to know? Doesn't this need to be exposed so the children can be set free and brought home?
See here for accompanying HPANWO TV video:

Monday, 3 July 2017

Ben Emlyn-Jones on THA Talks 2

I have been interviewed on THA Talks, a podcast presented by Paul Obertelli and John White, two old friends of mine from the Official David Icke Forum. Subjects discussed include the 70th anniversary of the Roswell UFO incident, the feasibility of willing UFO Disclosure and transhumanism.
See here for my previous appearance on THA Talks:

Sunday, 2 July 2017

Independence Day: Resurgence

When the film Independence Day was released in 1996 it was hyped more than any other movie. The marketing and advertising campaign exceeded almost everything previously seen in cinema. I remember seeing children carrying "ID4" packed lunch boxes to school. This has been repeated with subsequent films by Roland Emmerich. Therefore many people, including me, felt betrayed when we actually watched it and discovered that it was a pretty lousy film. The long-unawaited sequel Independence Day: Resurgence was different because it was not promoted as much beforehand. I had no intention of taking time out to go and see it on the big screen, but last weekend when I went to the UFO Academy, see:, I stayed overnight at a friend's house and he played the beginning of it on Netflix. I couldn't help being intrigued by some of the storyline. I saw a DVD of the film being sold very cheaply in a charity shop so decided to pick it up and watch the rest of it. The film is set in 2016 within the scenario of the world twenty-years after the victorious war against the malevolent extraterrestrials. The people of earth have reconstructed society from the devastation seen in the first film. There have been no wars between nations because the alien invasion taught humanity to "put our petty difference behind us" and achieve world peace. This is a vision inspired by a speech given by US President Ronald Reagan, see: The militaries of the earth have pooled their resources to create the United Nations Earth-Space Defence force that maintains a constant vigil for the possible return of the aliens. The US President is called Elizabeth Lanford, played by Sela Ward, and is a not-very-well disguised fictionalization of Hillary Clinton. Many of the characters... if you can call them that, from the first film are brought back, with the exception of Col. Steven Hiller who was played by Will Smith in the original. He is written out by being killed in a flying accident; however his son steps into his place. The tagline of the film is: "We always knew they would come back" which in itself reveals the entirety of the plot.

There is a scene in the middle of the story in which the viewer is presented with a vision of monumental global destruction. The biggest buildings being smashed into rubble, giant ships flying through the sky colliding with airliners, the land itself being rent into fragments and lacerated by huge chasms that swallow cars and lorries, monster waves overflowing from the oceans and inundating harbours. This is another textbook feature of Roland Emmerich's films and it takes place in nearly all of them. In fact in 2012 the cataclysm sequence is over forty minutes long. His films are marketed at a family audience and, putting myself in the place of a small child who watches them, I believe this to be highly traumatizing, see here for details: The most interesting part of the film is that humans are now using free energy and antigravity propulsion systems back engineered from the salvaged remains of the ET spacecraft. The UN's Earth-Space Defence includes a lot of hardware that use this technology, from personal small arms to space vehicles. There is an even bigger hint dropped when we learn that the weapons the humans use to destroy the aliens a second time (Do I really need to avoid that spoiler?) are called "cold fusion bombs". Why "cold fusion"? They must surely know that cold fusion is a very real thing, and that it refers to a suppressed free energy technology campaign that took place in 1989, see: The notion of a future world without war sounds very appealing. Would anybody seriously not want a world without any wars? However I suspect that this ideal has been used to sugar-coat some otherwise foul-tasting agendas, from Karl Marx to Francis Fukuyama. In Independence Day: Resurgence, we see the United Nations playing a very prominent role. Some of the central characters work for the UN in various capacities; a feature we are also presented with in World War Z, see: and: In a scene early in the film we see a convoy of UN trucks driving along a road in sub-Saharan Africa. This is strange; wouldn't trucks and roads be obsolete in a world with antigravity engines? Perhaps they are showing us UN trucks because those trucks are an iconic sight that affects collective human psychology. The concept of a one-world government justified by an alien invasion, real or fake, is still one we should seriously consider despite the no-show at the London 2012 Olympics, see here for details: Are the two Independence Day films being used to inject the archetypal notion into our minds in advance of the real thing taking place to prepare us mentally and culturally? The kindest thing I can say about Independence Day: Resurgence is that its special effects are magnificent. They are even better than the original, and those were excellent. However it is still meant to be a film and not a fireworks display. My favourite science fiction TV show is Blakes 7 which is famous for its low budget production design and homespun special effects. It had a great storyline, it was well-scripted and had great characterization and acting. The big lesson it taught sci-fi was that if you have those things then you don't need big budget special effects. Conversely, if you have a badly-written, badly-acted, shallow storyline with stereotypical characters then mind-blowing SFX will not save it. Both Independence Day films are perfect cases in point.