THE UFO CHRONICLES


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est
- Knowledge is Power -

     HAVERING'S "X-Files" have been released by the Ministry of Defence this month.

Information containing four years' worth of reported sightings of UFOs in the borough's night skies were made public on February 16 - they reveal two reports in Hornchurch and Romford last year, and a third sighting, in Hornchurch, back in 2002.

According to the log, released after a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the sighting on September 20, 2005, at 8.39pm, reads: "Four orange lights above the witnesses' house."

The log for September 05, 2005, at 9pm, simply says "A UFO."

But the earliest recorded local sighting in the four years dates back to March 7, 2002, in Hornchurch, and is painstakingly detailed: "Two semi-circular elliptical shapes dully illuminated yellow and white. There was a faint murmur."

The log also shows that nearby Loughton has had the most recorded UFO sightings, with six reported over the four years.

Last year's Havering sightings are most likely to be linked to those the Recorder reported in September - eight separate reports of lights in the sky over August and September were made to our newspaper from Elm Park, Hornchurch, Romford and Harold Hill residents.

But these were later found to most likely be floating lanterns released by a company in Stapleford Abbotts called Sky Lanterns.

Owner Barry Grant explained he imported the lanterns from Indonesia, where they were often released during festivals, and he had been experimenting with them over the summer.

However, the 2002 sighting remains unexplained. An Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The MOD, through the Royal Air Force, has to be satisfied that unidentified flying objects are not a threat to the UK within UK airspace.

"Beyond that, the MOD does not comment on the nuances of UFOs or purported sightings as, clearly, this would be quite an extensive commentary and a bad use of tax payers' money.

More . . .

See Also: MoD Probes UFO Sightings

Home

     (CBS 11 News) AURORA, TX Area 51 and Roswell, New Mexico have become a part of American folklore, but some believe an alien visitor was found in Texas first, in the city of Aurora, just up the road from Fort Worth.

UFO investigator Jim Marrs said, “A silver cigar-shaped object came down low to the ground in Aurora, north of Fort Worth, and struck a tower, wooden tower, derrick, windmill.”

Aurora’s Mayor Barbara Brammer continued, “The ship hit the tower for the well, exploded, burned.”

Marrs explained, “The remains of the pilot were recovered and he was not an inhabitant of this world.”

They believed the pilot was an alien.

Brammer said, “They took the remains of this down to the Aurora cemetery and buried it, gave it a Christian burial.”

Newspapers in both Dallas and Fort Worth reported the amazing event. In fact, an entire page of the April 19, 1897 edition of the Dallas Morning News is filled with reports of the great aerial wanderer. Either people all are joining in a prank, or something was in the skies over Texas and southern Oklahoma.

“Some people think that the guy in Dallas that wrote this article made this up to get some publicity about Aurora again, to get people coming back in,” said Brammer.

But Marrs retorts, “Every single one of the stories concerns the silver cigar-shaped object flying around the skies of Texas and Oklahoma in the spring of 1897, six years before the Wright brothers flew.”

The burial site became the focus of UFO researchers in the ‘70s. There was a tombstone, with a marking that appeared to be half of a saucer, or the cigar-shaped object.

Researchers ran metal detectors over the site where the ship was said to crash. Some say the grass hasn’t grown there since. In a nearby shed, there’s a well where wreckage, small bits of metal, was reportedly thrown.

But in 1973, the tombstone and the metal in the ground disappeared.

“We don’t know,” said Brammer. “It just came up missing. Somebody had removed it. We don’t know who.”

The owners of the well have cemented it shut. They, like other people in Aurora, are tired of the story, but it lives on nonetheless.

A state historical marker at the cemetery recounts the legend of the alien pilot who crashed, died and was buried.

“As far as me believing it, I really don’t know,” says Brammer. “I believe it was a legend and that’s as far as I can go.”

Marrs believes. “I think this should show any reasonable person that there are things, and they’re not us, and they’re flying around in the atmosphere.”

The legend is a mystery that lingers today.

More . . .

See Also: Airships-The Beginning-1896

Home

     New information has been presented that gives people interested in the story of “Project SERPO” more to consider and evaluate.

In recent days, people involved in the Web site serpo.org have posted previously undisclosed alleged accounts from former military and other officials who were reportedly directly involved in some capacity with Project SERPO-related activities.

Project SERPO is the alleged exchange program between astronaut-trained American military personnel and friendly visitors from a planet in the Zeta Reticuli star system in the 1960s and 70s.

More . . .

See Also: Alleged ‘Project SERPO’ Sent U.S. Military Team To Another Planet?

Home

     The attraction to Stephen Lovekin as a possible "insider witness" to a UFO/ET event involving a President and or the White House etc., is most certainly "enhanced" by being "packaged" as a "high ranking military official." What is on the table (at present) is a declaration from an individual, an anecdote if you will. In a court of law, it would be considered "eye witness testimony."

Obviously, the "character" of the witness can add or take away from the "credibility" of a respective account. Certainly, it is far more "impressive" and more apt to be believed coming from a "Brigadier General" then a layperson etc. Sagan said, (and what I have come to call "Sagan's Law") "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Kevin Randle wrote in part:

"This is important stuff, if it could be confirmed. A general officer, one who had once held the ear of the president and who could report on the president’s interest in UFOs, would make an impressive witness, especially if he could talk of a UFO crash and recovered debris. It should be relatively simple to verify Lovekin’s credentials as a general."

In that vein IMHO Kevin proceeded with some investigative research to vet the witness using his skills as a researcher along with his own personal experience in the military; he posted his progress on his respective Blog; personally, I didn't take his expose as slander or being libelous, and most importantly definitive. I believe it's important to note that people have come forward in the past, that at the present time seemed very "credible" that later proved to be otherwise, and Kevin Randle has has had direct involvement/experience in these matters, henceforth his "righteous skepticism" is warranted.

Now all that said, what are we left with? In my view, having done some of my own research into Lovekin, with the exception of what was recently submitted to Greer for publication (in regards to Lovekin's military background) it is "unclear" what originated "from him." Most importantly is there anything to date, that "negatively" affects the "character" of the man making the claim? I think not! His credentials, and the question of his "Brigadier General" status are to be commended whether they're "regular military" or some sort of state militia. The "key point" from my perspective is "his tenure at WHASA," which he has provided documents in support thereof.

I have located "other members" of WHASA, and the common theme amongst them, is that they were "culled" from various "military schools" (at a very young age); they were vetted by the FBI; they were trained by the NSA; they held "top secret clearances; "rank was a non-issue," and they wore civvies; they worked with the Secret Service, and in close proximity to the President; they provided "crypto secure communications" and went everywhere it was needed, e.g., the White House basement, Camp David, Mt Weather etc.

Unfortunately, and is often the case, we "UFO folks" get into these "pissing matches" and that becomes the focus, rather then the important research that needs to be taken to task.

Might I suggest we take Kevin at his word, that he meant no malice towards Lovekin and get on with the "research of the evidence," i.e., a "credible witness" with a "incredible disclosure."


See Also: Lovekin's Military Credentials in Question - No Longer!
- Part One -

See Also: Lovekin's Military Credentials in Question - No Longer!
- Part Two -

See Also: Lovekin's Military Credentials in Question - No Longer!
- Part Three -

Home

     Erich von Däniken has been causing controversy with his theses, books and television programmes about “prehistoric astronauts” for almost 40 years. Although mocked by serious scholars, his lectures are well attended and his books are sold around the world. Last Wednesday von Däniken familiarised an audience at the Budapest Congress Center with the “mysteries of the past.”

No, he still has not seen a UFO and not met any extraterrestrials, the 70-year old said, and he is still struggling to have his theories accepted. “I still have the feeling that when I turn up, people always scram,” he said.

However, von Däniken is undeterred and still spreads his theory that extraterrestrials were present on the earth thousands of years ago and were behind the construction of prominent buildings such as the pyramids of Giza, the stone statues on Easter Island and Stonehenge.

Von Däniken first began to develop his theories at a Jesuit school, when he realised “the God of the Bible” didn’t tie up with “god of my imagination.” He began to doubt Catholic belief and started to get interested in other religions.

“Many stories were repeated and so I gradually came to the explanation that the gods mentioned were in reality extraterrestrials.”

In order to prove his theses about prehistoric astronaut landings and lost civilisation, he undertook expensive world travel, which got him into financial troubles. He has yet to find objective proof but claims to have come across “chains of evidence for it,” and compared the situation to a murder case without a body.

He achieved world fame with his first book Chariots of the Gods, which was published in 1968 after being rejected twenty times. It became a film the following year. Von Däniken has written 29 books, which have been translated into 32 languages.

His theory is always questioned in scientific circles but that does not bother him. “My theory is not on a scientific level, but all sciences started that way. After all, before Darwin there was no anthropology,” he said.

Despite the criticism, he is convinced his theories will be taught in schools in “ten years at the latest.”

To find out more about his theories, visit www.evdaniken.com.

More . . .

See Also: Peru: "We Saw Them In The Sky"

Home

     On Aug. 7, 1996, the war of the worlds began in earnest. At a press conference in NASA's Washington, D.C., headquarters, researchers announced that a craggy lump of rock teemed with evidence of ancient Martian life. If true, E.T. had been found.

Even if E.T. were friendly, the scientific atmosphere surrounding the discovery of the rock certainly wasn't. However, it seems that E.T. wasn't friendly. The Mars meteorite press conference sparked a vicious clash between two increasingly entrenched scientific camps. Critics immediately started discrediting the research, and the opposing groups battled for years about the true meaning of the extraterrestrial rock. Nearly a decade later, the wounds haven't healed. The fights were brutal because the stakes were so high.

Kathy Sawyer, who covered outer space for the Washington Post for 17 years, adeptly tells the saga in The Rock From Mars . However, the subtitle of her book is somewhat misleading; the story is more "Rashomon" than The Hound of the Baskervilles . There's no "Aha!" moment, no final answer to a burning mystery, no way to know definitively who's right and who's wrong. Good scientists and good journalists have looked at the same data and the same evidence and come to very different conclusions about whether or not the rock once harbored alien life.

This much is not in dispute: The rock is from Mars. It crashed down on the Antarctic ice about 13,000 years ago. The inside of the meteorite is dotted with fascinating, carbon-rich orange and black blobs. Upon closer inspection, the rock also contains little grains of iron-based material very similar to those found in some kinds of microbes. And it is full of wiener-like shapes that look like earthly bacteria, only smaller. NASA had found microscopic space sausages.



NASA geologist David McKay and his team of researchers took this data as substantial evidence that the rock was once teeming with Martian bacteria. Sawyer's book shines when she describes the team's intellectual struggles; she lovingly takes us into the scientists' laboratories and shows us how they finally reached their jaw-dropping conclusion. Sawyer then shepherds us from the intellectual leap to the political kerfuffle. Once McKay's group decided that they had evidence for ancient life on Mars, events quickly spun out of control. The scientific hypothesis began to take on greater and greater significance as it passed from the researchers to their superiors to NASA administrator Daniel Goldin -- who used the meteorite as a lever to give the struggling NASA a new mission -- and eventually to the White House.

However, the tale isn't all rosy. NASA's handling of the press conference alienated a number of scientists who felt that the researchers were being irresponsible with their claim of extraterrestrial life. In the following months and years, critics tore into the McKay team's conclusion and accused NASA of hyping the research. As the case for life in the Mars rock got fuzzier and fuzzier, the debate slowly sank away from the public gaze and away from the mainstream of scientific discourse.

Sawyer tells the story well, though her sympathetic portraits of NASA scientists and managers rely heavily on their points of view. This causes some problems with balance. From NASA's perspective, criticism of its work might well seem to be "belligerencies" or attacks laced with "sheer personal vitriol," as Sawyer describes them, but to scientists on the other side of the issue, their comments were justified scientific criticism of a high-profile study. Sawyer's prose tends to bolster one side and undermine the other, occasionally even bordering on ad hominem. For example, anti-Mars-life scientists are painted as needlessly pugnacious: one "antagonist" is "fonder of confrontation than most" while another "did not suffer criticism lightly."

It's excusable for a journalist to pick sides in a fight she's studied for so long. Less acceptable, though, is that Sawyer occasionally uses rhetoric to obscure opposing arguments rather than to elucidate them. In the 1990s, she writes, NASA began to present its best science results with "a series of news updates that included video and graphics, dissenting points of view, context, and a tilt toward English over jargon. The perceived success of this approach in attracting media coverage fed a current of indignation among those who considered such efforts unseemly."

This is unfair. Clarity and evenhandedness didn't infuriate NASA critics. The nay-sayers were angry because they thought that NASA's PR machine tended to hype scientific findings beyond reason when political stakes were high -- or, worse yet, that NASA tarted up subpar research and presented it to the public as first-rate science in order to justify otherwise unjustifiable spending. John Glenn's shuttle flight and the "world-class" laboratory work of the International Space Station are arguably prime examples. To some, so is the Mars meteorite.

NASA is in the midst, once more, of cost overruns and budget crises, and is desperately trying to redefine itself. As the agency presents fascinating news from Mars, Saturn and elsewhere in the universe, seeing how it gets its hands dirty politicizing science would provide an interesting counterweight. Even though this might disappoint some die-hard NASA fans, it would be worth seeing how space sausages are made.

More . . .

See Also: NASA's Next Leap in Mars Exploration Ready for Launch

Home

     Feb. 24, 2006—Specks of comet dust carried to Earth inside a NASA science probe show tantalizing hints of organic compounds, bolstering suspicions that comets delivered key ingredients for the development of life on Earth.

Analysis of the samples brought back last month aboard the Stardust capsule is in the very early stages, but lead scientist Donald Brownlee said this week that he is encouraged by what researchers have found so far.

"We're seeing a variety of things that we know absolutely come from a comet," Brownlee, an astronomer with the University of Washington, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Though analysis has just begun, the samples so far have revealed iron, sulfides, glassy materials and traces of olivine.

The samples are from Comet Wild-2, which flew just 149 miles (240 kilometers) past the Stardust spacecraft on Jan. 2, 2004.

During the encounter, the spacecraft extended a collection tray filled with 132 tiles of lightweight, heat-resistant gel that captured individual particles streaming off the comet's body.

As they bored into the gel, the particles created carrot-shaped trails, many of which were visible to the naked eye when scientists opened the canister upon its return to Earth a year later.

"When you have the samples in hand, it's a whole different universe," Brownlee said.

Early indications show Stardust collected at least 2,300 comet particles measuring 15 micrometers — one-third the diameter of a human hair — or larger, according to University of Chicago researchers who built one of the spacecraft science instruments.

Scientists are particularly keen to learn if any of the comet samples contain traces of matter from the original dust cloud that provided the raw materials for the creation of the solar system some 4.8 billion years ago.

Comets are believed to be relatively unchanged since their formation because they primarily dwell far from the sun's heat in a perpetual deep-freeze beyond Neptune's orbit.

After dropping off its return capsule for a parachute landing on Earth, the Stardust spacecraft was placed into a solar orbit while NASA weighs options for a second comet encounter. No more samples can be returned, but the probe has cameras and other instruments for close-up studies.

The first scientific results from the Stardust mission are expected to be released next month.

More . . .

See Also: NASA's Stardust Capsule To Put On Light Show

Home

     With the recent publication of the Lovekin documents the vested parties have offered their respective proclamations; the most recent is that of Dr. Michael Salla an outspoken proponent of Exopolitics. He writes:

In his recent article, "The Enablers of Secrecy," Dr Steven Greer has supplied a number of documents in response to Major Kevin Randle's speculations and conclusions regarding the military service and rank of Brigadier General Stephen Lovekin. Major Randle's article is at:

here.

The documents supplied by Dr Greer are at:

here ;

and Dr Greer's response to Major Randle at:

here

With regard to Lovekin's rank as a Brigadier General, Major Randle offered the following speculation as to the official status of this rank:

"These state guards have been pulled together in an unofficial national organization of state militia. Lovekin might hold his brigadier general commission in just such an organization. It might suggest his claim to be a brigadier general, while unofficial and not recognized by either the Army or the North Carolina National Guard would allow him to claim the rank. This is all speculation on my part."

In the documents offered by Stephen Greer, one is a duty roster for the North Carolina State Guard which lists Stephen Lovekin as a Brigadier General.

As to the official status of the NCSG, this is what their website declares:

The SGAUS is the national association for the organized state militia, often known as State Defense Force, State Guard, or State Military Reserve. These state military forces are the official "well regulated" Militia of their respective states. The SGAUS does not support private groups who may call themselves "militia," but who are not officially recognized, unless the group is bona fide and seeking such official state recognition. These state military forces are in addition to and separate from the National Guard of the respective states, although both organizations are under the command of the Governor and are assigned to the state's Adjutant General or Military Department. www.ncstateguard.org

Consequently, the rank of Brigadier General assigned to Stephen Lovekin is officially recognized by the Governor of North Carolina andofficially is part of that state's Military Department. So Major Randle was incorrect in his speculation regarding the 'unofficial status' of the State Guard that Stephen Lovekin attained his rank.

This documentary evidence proves that Stephen Lovekin has an official status as a Brigadier General in an official military organization recognized by the State of North Carolina.

Another error in Kevin Randle's article concerns Stephen Lovekin's service in the White House where he speculates:

"Then there was the claim by Lovekin that he worked in the Eisenhower White House. Well, if Stephen L. Lovekin and the attorney in North Carolina are the same man, this makes little sense. According to the information Stephen L. Lovekin, the attorney, was born in August 1940.

His biography at the law firm web site does not mention any military service, nor does it suggest that he was ever a brigadier general. That in and of itself seems strange. To further complicate the matter, if these are the same men, then Lovekin was 18 when he worked in the Eisenhower White House. While it is not unheard of for a teenager to be an Army officer (I was a warrant officer at 19), it is extremely unlikely that someone of that age to be assigned to the White House. Those postings are normally reserved for more experienced soldiers."

Again, documentary evidence supplied Dr Greer proves that General Lovekin did serve in the White Housel Signals Agency as he claimed:

www.disclosureproject.org Again, Major Randle is incorrect in his speculations regarding General Lovekin. Finally, we have the final conclusion from Maj Randle regarding the claims of Brig General Lovekin:

"This all suggests to me that the "whistle blower" testimony offered by Stephen L. Lovekin is of little use in developing any policies related to UFOs or extraterrestrial visitation. There is no corroboration of his many claims of military service as a high-ranking officer, no verification of his positions in the White House and little reason to believe he was witness to the things he claims. Like so many of the other whistle blowers, he should be removed from our lists."

Documentary evidence has now emerged that Maj Randle was wrong both in a number of speculations he offered concerning Brig General Lovekin, and dramatically wrong in the conclusion he offered. His advise to remove the testimony of Gen Lovekin from the lists of serious UFO researchers amounts to a character assassination against a man who has served with distinction both in the US Army and the State of North Carolina. It would be appropriate for Maj Randle to publicly apologize for his unjust dismissal and criticisms of the claims offered by Brig General Stephen Lovekin regarding both his military service and UFOs/extraterrestrial visitation.

Aloha,

Michael Salla, PhD
www.exopolitics.org

[It is understood that Stephen Lovekin has been experiencing serious health problems--we wish him a full and speedy recovery]

See Also: Lovekin's Military Credentials in Question - No Longer!
- Part One -

See Also: Lovekin's Military Credentials in Question - No Longer!
- Part Two -

Home

     Yesterday Steven Greer wrote a "stinging missive" in partial rebuttal to Kevin Randle's piece on Stephen Lovekin, a labeled "whistleblower" by Greer and his "Disclosure Project." He wrote:

For over a decade, The Disclosure Project and CSETI have worked to identify reliable government and military witnesses to secret UFO/ET-related events and projects.

Without an office, staff or significant budget, we have identified hundreds of such whistle-blowers, who have come forward heroically and without compensation so that you, the public, may know the truth. It has been a costly and all-consuming effort to unravel the biggest secret in modern history, so that our civilization may reclaim its future and attain sustainability.

Alas, a steady drum-beat of slander, libel, defamation of character, and ad hominem attacks have continued to occur from certain quarters. For the most part, we have chosen to ignore such attacks, since generally they arise from either sour-grapes and jealous elements of the so-called UFO subculture or from paid disinformation hacks. We prefer to focus on constructive change and doing the real work of Disclosure.

But it must be acknowledged that, left unaddressed, at times such attacks create a dynamic where secrecy is enabled and perpetuated. For if we, as a community, cannot defend these brave and heroic whistle-blowers, who will? And left undefended, a dynamic will evolve where a wet-blanket will be thrown on the willingness for these already-reluctant (and often threatened) witnesses to come forward.

Many of you have read the recent attacks and defamation of a courageous Disclosure Project Witness, Brigadier (Brig.) General Stephen Lovekin, Esq., by one Kevin Randle.

Randle claims Brig. General Lovekin is not a Brigadier General and suggests he has falsified or concocted his credentials. Nothing could be further from the truth. See www.DisclosureProject.org for a file of documents that establish Brig. General Lovekin's time in the White House as well as his status as a BG (Brig. General).

That Randle could not, with whatever investigative competence he may or may not possess, show that this fine and heroic witness was a Brig. General is not reason for his public defamation of this man.

While Brig. General Lovekin was hospitalized, literally fighting for his life, Randle has engaged in casting aspersions on his credibility, and by extension, on The Disclosure Project. Prior to publishing these baseless accusations, Randle never contacted me or Brig. General Lovekin to ascertain the facts of the matter.

This is typical of the so-called investigators within the hobbyist UFO subculture, who arrogate to themselves the role of police, judge and jury about such matters - all the while failing to engage in a modicum of due diligence or care.

Would it really have been so difficult to ask Brig. General Lovekin for documentation of his status? He is a well-regarded attorney in NC with a public listing. Instead, Randle chose to publish his libelous claims and besmirch a fine man's reputation.

Such events have happened throughout the history of UFO secrecy. Good and sincere people come forward, to disclose the truth or change the status quo, only to have countless rabid wolves set upon them, slandering them and defaming their reputations.

This behavior, altogether unchecked by the interested public that deserves to know the truth, serves to enable secrecy by discouraging further selfless and sincere best-faith efforts by professionals like Brig. Gen. Lovekin and indeed myself. I am a medical doctor, Lovekin is an attorney and his cousin, Dr. Ted Loder, is a PhD scientist and scientific advisor to the Disclosure Project. How can the UFO community
expect such professional people to step forward if we will not defend them from these vicious and baseless attacks?

For who would want to step forward, to disclose the truth and blow the whistle on the rogue and illegal secrecy surrounding UFOs, UFO-connected technologies and the like only to have the UFO community itself set upon them with one ugly attack after another?

Whether out of jealousy or shadowy ties to those who desire to perpetuate secrecy, the effect is the same: Such ad hominem attacks serve to dissuade others from coming forward.

Moreover, insofar as The Disclosure Project is providing important whistle-blower testimony and documents to government leaders in the US, Canada and other countries, these libelous assertions serve to discourage such government officials from looking further into the matter.

Enough is enough.

A Call to Action

- It is time for you, the concerned public, to hold such behavior accountable. We encourage you to contact Randle, and others who engage in similar baseless attacks, and demand that they behave responsibly and cease and desist from such attacks on courageous whistle-blowers.

- The Disclosure Project asks that you help us identify a top quality Attorney with experience in defamation, libel and slander cases to work with us in defending the rights and reputation of Disclosure Project witnesses.

- We ask that you write publications or organizations affiliated with those who engage in such attacks and demand that they take actions to stop such behavior.

- We ask that you help us identify further UFO military and government witnesses and support the Disclosure Project at www.DisclosureProject.org so that we may continue to provide the public with the truth.

<> We must not enable those who would enable secrecy. It is time that we hold such behavior accountable and defend the honor, reputation and testimony of such fine and heroic witnesses as Brig. General Stephen Lovekin.

Today in response Kevin Randle writes:

I would think, before you take off on a rant, you’d want to see what I have to say about “Brigadier General” Stephen Lovekin.

Might I suggest you read the information that I have posted at www.KevinRandle.blogspot.com. Then decide if the questions I raised were reasonable or if I have launched some kind of ad hominem attack on Lovekin.

Second, it would seem to me that those after the information they claim is hidden by the government would want to be sure that their whistle blowers were exactly who they said they were. Ask yourself this question: If a reporter found the information I did, would he or she be more inclined to accept or reject the testimony of Lovekin.

The solution is simple. Rather than imply Lovekin is a general in the National Guard Reserve (which doesn’t exist) and rather than suggest he has a long career in the Army, explain that he holds his commission in the State Guard of North Carolina
Association. Also explain that he was not a general while serving in the White House Army Signal Agency, but was, in reality, a rather low ranking enlisted man.

And finally, for those who wonder about my credentials, let me point out that I served in the Army in Vietnam, I was a member of the Iowa National Guard that was called to active duty and served for 14 months including a tour in Iraq, and I am being recalled for another tour in the Middle East. So, I have the right to ask questions about someone who says he is a general, but who is strangely left out of and off all the official sites and locations that could verify this. I am not a part of a volunteer, civilian organization like the State Guard of North Carolina Association.

Thanks for reading the above.

Kevin D. Randle

[It is understood that Stephen Lovekin has been experiencing serious health problems--we wish him a full and speedy recovery]

See Also:Lovekin's Military Credentials in Question - No Longer!
- Part One -

See Also: Lovekin is a General... But...

Look For - Part Three -

Home

Type: I
Date: Tuesday, February 21 2006

Place: Northern Caguas.

Time: 4:00 A.M.

Witness: Antonio Torres (Pseudonym) and three others

Evidence: Video

Brief Description: A round yellow light that looked like a star at a distance

Summary: “In the evening of February 21, 2006 around 4:00 a.m., my mother woke me up to see an alleged light in the sky which was being discussed on the radio, don't know the station, but I'm sure it was on the AM band, as that is the only one she listens to. I headed for the terrace, looked at the sky and saw it, but to be sure I found my camera and recorded it. There are some good closeups on the film and everything ended at dawn, since the sun's light kept me from recording further. They allegedly said on the radio that it was toward El Yunque [rainforest]. It was a round shining light that seemed white, moving left and right. At a distance it resembled a star."

Conclusion: It was the planet Venus, which was rising at that time over the horizon.

Reported by: Antonio to Lucy Guzmán de Ovni.Net

* Translation (c) 2006. Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology (IHU)

More . . .

See Also: Follow Up: Puerto Rico's Mysterious Triangular UFO Incident

Home

     There has been much controversy as of late in regards to the "military credentials" of one "Stephen L. Lovekin." Lovekin a practicing attorney in North Carolina first came to light in Steven Greer's book, Extraterrestrial Contact, Granite Publishing LLC 1999 pg. 357 as "Witness K." Greer describes "Witness K" as:

"Major SL, a respected lawyer who was an Army cryptographer in the Pentagon from 1959-61. He he was shown samples of debris from the crash of an ET craft in New Mexico in the late 1940's, and it was demonstrated to him the extraordinary properties of the material. He saw the ET writing on the debris and was told it was being studied by Army cryptographers, but they had not (in 1959) broken the code. He also had confirmed to him then President Eisenhower's interest in the subject, that he knew of the subject, but that he was being left out of substantial information dealing with ET technology programs. Major SL [Lovekin] had a top-secret clearance and continues to possess a top secret clearance as an Army reserve today."

The most recent imputation came from Ufologist and well known author, "Kevin Randle"; in part he wrote:

" . . . Thanks to a book entitled Stolen Valor I’m now suspicious of most claims of military association, especially those who claim to have achieved high rank. It surprised me then and continues to surprise me that so many people will claim military service who have never worn a uniform and that so many of those who were actually in the military have embellished their careers. . .. "

Randle made attempts to validate Lovekin's military background to no avail; that with his (Randle) own military experience he concluded:

". . . This all suggests to me that the "whistle blower" testimony offered by Stephen L. Lovekin is of little use in developing any policies related to UFOs or extraterrestrial visitation. There is no corroboration of his many claims of military service as a high-ranking officer, no verification of his positions in the White House and little reason to believe he was witness to the things he claims. Like so many of the other whistle blowers, he should be removed from our lists."

Today Steven Greer wrote a scolding rebuttal to Randle's missive and he in part said:

"Many of you have read the recent attacks and defamation of a courageous Disclosure Project Witness, Brigadier (Brig.) General Stephen Lovekin, Esq., by one Kevin Randle.

Randle claims Brig. General Lovekin is not a Brigadier General and suggests he has falsified or concocted his credentials."

Greer goes on to further chastise Randle (to put it mildly) about what he describes as "ad hominem attacks" on Lovekin.

For those of you paying attention, in regards to Ufology, lines have been established for researchers in support of what has become known as "Exopolitics" and what I call "moderate Ufology." (This is a larger piece of this pie which we'll delve into at later date). Emotions often run high between the two groups, and sometimes a "civil debate" is hard to come by. Personally, I took Randle's missive as "his voice of skepticism" in regards to Lovekin's declaration as well as a "laundry list" of "investigative chores" he performed in order to validate "Stephen Lovekin's" military background.

Moreover, his piece wasn't "definitive," and his research was still ongoing; let's not forget that he also wrote:

". . . This is important stuff, if it could be confirmed. A general officer, one who had once held the ear of the president and who could report on the president’s interest in UFOs, would make an impressive witness, especially if he could talk of a UFO crash and recovered debris. . . .

Methinks most of us would agree with this ideology, and to that end, the evidence (various supportive documents) provided "by Greer" (recently posted on the "Disclosure" web-site - see below) from Lovekin is invaluable.

[It is understood that Stephen Lovekin has been experiencing serious health problems--we wish him a full and speedy recovery]

See Lovekin Documents

See Also: UFOs Exist . . . Governments Know Far More About Extraterrestrial Visitors Than They're Letting On

Home

     Seeing strange lights and weird objects flying in the sky, nearly a hundred Tennesseans have made such claims over the last few years and the number of UFO sightings in the state is growing.

According to the Appalachian UFO research center, about a hundred people in Tennessee reported seeing UFO's between 2004 and the winter of 2005.

Some of those sighting were right here in the Mid-South.

Tony Pratt describes his first encounter back in 1986.

"It was about 11:30, we stepped outside and saw a big triangle outside a Baptist church," said Tony Pratt.

Pratt uses his video camera to document UFO's. He claims if you point the camera toward the sun, then block out the sun itself, you can see something flying in the sky.

More . . .

See Also: UFO Filmed Over Bristol, Tennessee

Home

     After being involved with over 1000 experiencers (alien abductees), a former registered nurse, who is now a professional counselor and clinical hypnotherapist, has concluded that alien “abductions” are not only real encounters, but that they are about spiritual awakening and galactic contact. Mary Rodwell is not alone, as a growing number of academics, scientists and politicians, such as the former Canadian Minister of Defense Hon. Paul Hellyer, are starting to support the core of her paradigm shifting views about life in the Universe and that some UFOs are extraterrestrial spaceships.

     Perth, Australia (PRWEB) February 22, 2006 -- A former registered nurse who has worked with hundreds of clients, including many children, will be revealing evidence of their encounters with extraterrestrial beings at an upcoming conference in Montreal, Canada.

After a decade of research as a professional counselor and clinical hypnotherapist, Australia’s Mary Rodwell says that there is now enough evidence to conclude that these “beings” appear to come from other planets and other dimensions parallel to our own.

She will be making her presentation at the 31st annual conference of the International Institute of Integral Human Sciences (IIIHS) taking place in Montreal May 5th to 14th, 2006.

The IIIHS is a non-profit organization affiliated with the United Nations Department of Public Information. It serves over 10,000 general members and students from many nations towards the convergence of new sciences with spirituality and universal human values, creating inter-religious and inter-cultural understanding for world peace.

Rodwell will be one of more than 60 speakers to address the IIIHS, with other distinguished professionals such as medical doctors, psychiatrists, physicists, scientists, psychologists, spiritual leaders, and even a former NASA astronaut (www.iiihs.org).

She is a co-founder of the Australian Close Encounter Resource Network (ACERN), vice-President of Star Kids Project Ltd., founded by Dr. Richard Boylan, and the author of “Awakening: How Extraterrestrial Contact can Transform Your Life”.

Rodwell says that after being involved with over 1,000 “experiencers” (alien abductees) nothing had prepared her for what she discovered.

“My clients include both adults and children who exhibit transformative changes such as telepathy, clairvoyance and healing as they become more spiritually aware and begin to operate on a multi-dimensional band of reality”, says Rodwell. “In the last 10 years, clients have come to me from the U.K, North America, Europe, Russia, Japan and South America”.

Rodwell also explains that part of her client’s contact experiences seems to inspire them to draw complex artwork, scripts, symbols and sometimes speaking strange languages.

“An eight year old has called her downloading of information ‘knowledge bombs’, as complex data conveyed through mental images and concepts seem to create a heightened consciousness level”, says Rodwell. “These ‘Star Children’ exhibit a maturity and wisdom beyond their years and often describe their connection to spirit and angelic realms”.

This former registered nurse is not the only one to have noticed a change with today’s children. A May 2005 USA Today article quotes James Twyman, producer of films on “Indigo Children”, as saying that a new generation of special children are among us who have increased telepathic abilities and are spiritually awakened.

The name “Indigo Children” comes from a blue indigo colored aura that some people say they can see around these children, as per a January 2006 New York Times article.

ABC News’ Diane Sawyers has also explored the issue of these extraordinary children in a November 2005 interview with an entire family of “Indigo Children”. Sawyers said that this phenomenon was “fascinating” and was “across the country”.

Rodwell explains that while many “Star Children” and “Indigo Children” have telepathic abilities, are spiritually awakened and often describe seeing “Beings of Light” (angels), the main difference is that “Star Children” have recollections of having had encounters with extraterrestrial beings and of sometimes having been on alien spaceships.

Though many medical professionals are still skeptical, in November 2003, Rodwell’s work was featured in the Australian Doctor Focus Magazine, a prestigious Australian medical journal.

Rodwell is not alone with her views as a growing number of professionals in the medical community share her conclusions and have spoken publicly.

Such people include the late world-renowned Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry, Dr. John E. Mack, author of “Passport to the Cosmos”. and Dr. Janet Colli, author of “Sacred Encounters – Spiritual Awakenings During Close Encounters”. Dr. Colli will also speak at Montreal’s IIIHS conference.

Rodwell’s work continues to raise serious questions that were raised in February 2005 on ABC News by the late Peter Jennings in his two hour Primetime Special: “UFOs – Seeing is Believing”.

Jennings’ millions of viewers were presented with a small portion of the 150 interviews conducted by ABC in regards to the controversial and enigmatic issue of UFOs and extraterrestrial encounters. Jennings concluded that many UFOs were indeed unidentified and that questions about their origin remained unanswered.

To Rodwell, the answer is that we are being visited by extraterrestrial civilizations. Her conclusion is echoed by the former Canadian Minister of National Defense Hon. Paul Hellyer, who, in September of 2005, went public saying that UFOs were as real as the airplanes that fly over our heads, and were indeed extraterrestrial vehicles.

During a December 2005 NBC News interview with Tucker Carlson, Hellyer quoted former high level Pentagon officials as the source of his information. One of his sources includes an unnamed retired US Air Force General who spoke with him directly and confirmed that some UFOs were indeed "identified" and were piloted by extraterrestrial intelligences.

Hellyer is not the only politician who has raised the issue of UFOs. A CNN November 2002 article quoted President Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff, John Podesta, asking for the Pentagon to come clean and to declassify their UFO files.

Podesta currently supports a Coalition for Freedom of Information lawsuit against NASA asking for the declassification of their top secret files in relations to the 1965 UFO crash in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania.

Though her evidence does not include an actual UFO, Rodwell says that she has evidence from a scientific, medical, psychological, and historical perspective to support her paradigm shifting conclusion that children are being evolved and transformed on many levels through extraterrestrial encounters.

This evidence will be presented in her first Canadian presentation in Montreal May 5th-14th, 2006 at the IIIHS conference. Rodwell is available for media interviews.

CONTACTS FOR MEDIA INTERVIEWS:

Australian Close Encounter Resource Network (ACERN)
Perth, Australia
Contact: Mary Rodwell
Tel: 001