Connect with us


UFO research allegedly ended in 2012, but it didn’t. Why keep lying?



UFO research allegedly ended in 2012 but it didnt Why keep lying

The Pentagon, under the orders of former Senator Harry Reid, had a secret UFO research program working from 2007 to 2012. It allegedly ended, though reports indicate it simply had its direct funding pulled. Luis Elizondo, he headed the program, resigned in October and claims a replacement was named. So much for the program ending five years ago.

It’s hard to question why we have such a program. The real question is why they won’t just admit to it. Acknowledging the existence of a program doesn’t divulge any of its secrets. We know he CIA exists without knowing many of the details about what they do. Why does the Pentagon and/or the government in general feel they need to shroud such an endeavor in lies?

As one who doesn’t believe UFOs are from a planet far, far away, I’m still okay with the research itself. There are definitely unidentified flying objects. Our national security may require us to someday identify these objects. For all we know, some of them have been identified and our national security was protected as a result.

If it had been, we wouldn’t know about it.

Here’s the piece about the program from the NY Times:

Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program with the program have also studied videos of encounters between unknown objects and American military aircraft – including one released in August of a whitish oval object, about the size of a commercial plane, chased by two Navy F/A-18F fighter jets from the aircraft carrier Nimitz off the coast of San Diego in 2004.

Mr. Reid, who retired from Congress this year, said he was proud of the program. “I’m not embarrassed or ashamed or sorry I got this thing going,” Mr. Reid said in a recent interview in Nevada. “I think it’s one of the good things I did in my congressional service. I’ve done something that no one has done before.”

Final Thoughts

This isn’t about disclosing secrets or causing an uproar. It’s about credibility. We need to know the government takes it seriously and we need to know they haven’t necessarily found anything too worrisome. Just put our minds at ease. Let us know you’re watching the skies, even if only to make us feel better.

Scarlett is a mom and a friend. She blogs for a living but really prefers to read more than write. She writes mostly about politics, but occasionally delves into book and movie reviews.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Social media one cause for adolescence now starting at 10 and lasting until 24



Social media one cause for adolescence now starting at 10 and lasting until 24

A new scientific paper out of England proposes that social media is one cause for both the premature ending of childhood and delayed transition to adulthood until age 24.

The age of adolescence is the phase of life stretching between childhood and adulthood, and its definition has long posed a conundrum. Adolescence encompasses elements of biological growth and major social role transitions, both of which have changed in the past century. Earlier puberty has accelerated the onset of adolescence in nearly all populations, while understanding of continued growth has lifted its endpoint age well into the 20s. In parallel, delayed timing of role transitions, including completion of education, marriage, and parenthood, continue to shift popular perceptions of when adulthood begins.

The paper suggests a view of adolescence as between the ages of 10 and 24 “corresponds more closely to adolescent growth and popular understandings of this life phase.”

The paper also remarked on the role of social media, regarding it as being among the “unprecedented social forces…affecting health and wellbeing across these years.”

The paper cited “delayed timing of role transitions, including completion of education, marriage and parenthood” in affecting the perception of when adulthood effectively begins. It goes on to suggest the longer range of adolescence is “essential” for “developmentally appropriate framing of laws, social policies, and service systems.”

If the paper’s premise were adopted, one logical conclusion would be the extension of the period in life when one might enjoy the privileges of adulthood, such as voting and driving automobiles, without the corresponding responsibilities or legal liabilities of being an adult (for which those costs are often shifted to the innocent victims or society in general). For example, in many states, minors (under age 18) are treated as juveniles and often receive much more lenient sentences (and charging decisions) on account of age, even when their crime is very much a “grown-up” crime and the impact of the crime on the victim is no less.

One can also view this as cynical social engineering. A call to increase social services, with the justification of an expanded population “in need” and “at risk,” would result in subsequent calls for increased government funding of social services. As someone has to be paid to provide those services, the redefinition of adolescence can be suspected to be merely the latest pseudo-scientific attempt to lengthen the public employee / social services gravy train, which always seems to run on time.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The strange tale of the Turpin family



The strange tale of the Turpin family

Abuse of children is one of the most horrible things anyone can do. Rarely do I even read stories about abuse. I know it exists. I’m against it. I don’t want reminders of how evil some people really are. The story of the Turpin family drew me in and made me weep for a world that allows such things to happen.

Here’s the story, followed by my brief thoughts:

California family: Parents charged after children found shackled, 57, and Louise, 49, are accused of holding their children captive in their Perris, California, home in filthy conditions, some of them shackled to beds with chains and padlocks. The 13 siblings range in age from 2 to 29.

The parents are charged with torture and child endangerment, and scheduled for a court hearing Thursday. Bail was set at $9 million each. It was not immediately clear if the suspects had attorneys or whether they had entered a plea.

On Sunday, one of their daughters, a 17-year-old, managed to escape from their home by climbing out a window and called 911 from a deactivated cell phone she found in the house, police said. She told officers her parents were holding her 12 siblings captive inside the home, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department said.

My Take

There’s a danger here. We have to be mindful of children who are being abused. Unfortunately, that also means there will be times when the state must intervene. Any time that happens, I get worried. I want as little intervention as possible and only when absolutely necessary. The story of the Turpin family is an example of it being necessary.

The problem is that this evil was allowed to continue for decades. How can that happen? How do we respect the rights of parents and embrace a non-interfering government when there are people like the Turpins in the world? It’s a slippery slope and I have no answers.

Continue Reading


How to debate your political enemies… and win



How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.