 |
| Credit: Tabercil |
Eller ska vi helt enkelt acceptera att han inordnat sig i NATO-ledet nu?
 |
| Credit: Exotic Indian Art (?) |
The first time I watched "Inferno", I didn´t like it. At all. The whole thing felt extremely unrealistic (even for a Dan Brown story). Or like an extended European-Turkish travel guide for American tourists with fake cultural sensibilities. I considered it the worst of the three Dan Brown-related films. I don´t remember the exact year I saw the movie, but I do have a guess.
It must have been before the COVID pandemic...
Today? Well, when I re-watched "Inferno" earlier tonight, it struck me as a documentary. At least more or less! Above all, the film feels post-COVID rather than 2016 (the actual release date).
The plot revolves around a group of eco-terrorists who have developed a pathogen which can kill half of Earth´s population. Naturally, the activists assume they are working for the greater good of the species or something to that effect. Their leader is a billionaire, a certain Zobrist, with all kinds of odd ideas. The WHO are the good guys (!) but it´s interesting that they are depicted almost as an intelligence agency. Think CIA or FBI. Other actors are looking for the bio-weapon, too. In one plot twist, a global security firm working on behalf of the genocidal Zobrist realize they´ve been conned and switch sides at the last possible moment.
It´s interesting to note that the terrorists are depicted as young, idealist and extremely well-educated. They are fanatics, but not obviously brain-washed. Zobrist is excentric but also rich and good-looking. It´s difficult not to think of, say, Elon Musk or Peter Thiel. But while Musk and Thiel are very much part of the establishment (and rather ugly), Zobrist doesn´t work for some secret Illuminati cabal. He seems to be a genuinely independent rebel. Come to think of it, all films based on Dan Brown´s novels are pro-establishment. (If this also true of the novels, I don´t know.) "The Da Vinci Code" defends sinister secret societies, "Angels and Demons" is implicitly pro-Vatican, while "Inferno" is about brave globalist agents trying to stop some kind of confused Woke utopians.
If they had wanted to make "Inferno" even more realistic, the terrorists would have (perhaps unwittingly) worked for some next-level government black-op, while Zobrist would have been a powerful capitalist tycoon with insane takes seen as quite respectable among his peers...
But surely I´m just being paranoid, right? Right.
Okej, jag måste klaga lite på språkbruket i svenska medier. Igen. Eller propagandan?
För det första: "Vad händer om USA lämnar NATO". Men USA kan inte lämna NATO. Det är USA som bestämmer i NATO. Det är en amerikansk organisation som Europa och Kanada anslutit sig till. Ingenting annat. Om USA lämnar FN, kommer FN fortfarande att finnas till. När Storbritannien lämnade EU, fortsatte EU att existera. (Fråga britterna får ni se!) Men om USA "lämnar NATO" kommer NATO att upphöra att existera. NATO kommer att upplösas. Poängen med denna retorik verkar vara att framställa NATO som en självständig organisation, ungefär som just FN och EU. Ungefär som om det faktiskt vore en norrman eller en flygande holländare som bestämde i den nordatlantiska "alliansen". Den starkaste militärmakten om USA "lämnar" NATO kommer förresten att vara Turkiet. Så näste "generalsekreterare" blir väl en krypto-islamist med uppdämda osmanska stormaktsdrömmar, men whatever.
För det andra: "Ukraina förhandlar med USA". Jo, det stämmer nog att Ukraina faktiskt gör det. Men varför? USA och Ukraina är ju inte jämbördiga parter. Ukraina är nämligen USA:s (NATO:s?) proxy. Vad hindrar USA från att helt enkelt diktera villkoren för sina proxies? Givetvis just ingenting alls. Titta på Israel. Både Biden och Trump dikterade villkoren för Netanyahu. Nu var villkoren inte särskilt hårda, men poängen är att alla vet vem som håller i penningpungen (och vapenleveranserna). Och Israel är förmodligen starkare i förhållande till USA än vad Ukraina är.
Så vad handlar förhandlingarna om egentligen? De hänger antagligen samman med att Trump-administrationen är splittrad i sin syn på Ukraina. Vilket i sin tur avspeglar att det amerikanska etablissemanget med stor sannolikhet stödjer Ukraina. En annan aspekt är nog att Trump vill åt Ukrainas mineraltillgånger. För att få *dem* måste han ju förhandla. USA har inga trupper på marken som bara kan gå in och ta dem. Och många av tillgångarna ligger på eller i närheten av mark som ockuperas av Ryssland. Men i medierna framställs det alltid som att Ukraina är en självständig, jämbördig part med USA (och NATO, och EU...).
För det tredje: "Den regelbaserade liberala världsordningen har gett vika för stormakternas tid. Nu är det stormakterna som gäller. Stormakterna...stormakterna...stormakterna!!!" Detta måste vara den aspekt av retoriken som är mest idiotisk. Misstänker att alla utanför Västeuropa skrattar rått just nu. Det har *alltid* handlat om stormakterna. Alltid. Alla vet att "den regelbaserade liberala världsordningen" uppstod - inte 1945 - utan 1989-91, när USA blev världens enda supermakt. Den upprättades alltså av en dessa förkättrade stormakter. Det (Väst)europa inte gillar är att stormakten som hållit dem om ryggen sedan 1945 har dumpat deras söta små ärschlen. Men i mediernas Eviga Nu får man intrycket att världshistorien började med en väldigt idealiserad Barack Obama!
Eftersom detta inlägg nästan låter "vänster" måste jag väl betona att jag alltså stödjer Israel, Ukraina och EU mot Trump. Jag kanske rentav stödjer "stoooormakterna", vad vet ni. Men det är lite oroväckande att herrarnas propaganda låter både feg och fjollig. Vi snackar copium i kubik. Och jag tror inte enorma mängder av den drogen hjälper mot islamism, putinism eller trumpism...
The Trouble Maker in Charge, Jimmy Corsetti, is back with a new video on Göbekli Tepe. Yes, that place again! Not sure if I believe any of this guy´s takes anymore. Posted for easy reference only.
2025 fortsätter att vara rekordåret för konstigheter och allsköns dumheter, galenskaper, o.s.v.
Thomas Sheridan on route to Magonia...again. He wonders aloud whether the fairy (or is it the Commonwealth of Elves) have developed high technology. You guessed it: it´s the UFOs. That is, the UFOs are not weird hallucinations created by fairy glamour, but actual advanced space craft built by the Good People and capable of interdimensional travel.
It´s intriguing that Sheridan doesn´t take the next logical step and declare that the fairies are inhabitants of *our* dimension. For more on this, see my review of the Swedish UFO book "Danaiderna" elsewhere on this blog. At one point, Sheridan mentions the Turkish Kumburgaz UFO case. For more on *that* particular rabbit hole, see my previous two blog posts!
Is the world headed for a showdown with the Commonwealth of Magonia?
 |
| UFO abducts animals for alien zoo! |
So I had to ask ChatGPT about the Kumburgaz UFO case + footage. Here is an extensive discussion.
Yes — there are serious skeptical analyses and proposed “debunkings” of the Kumburgaz UFO case. While the case remains controversial and some people maintain it’s unexplained, these critiques highlight plausible alternative explanations, technical issues, or interpretive flaws. Below is a summary of the major skeptical arguments, opposing claims, and where the debate stands.
Between 2007 and 2009, a night guard named Yalçın Yalman in Kumburgaz, Turkey, filmed multiple videos of strange aerial objects over the Sea of Marmara.
The footage shows disc- or arc-shaped luminous craft, sometimes with red/orange lights, hovering or maneuvering.
The case attracted attention nationally in Turkey, was investigated by Turkish scientific bodies (such as TÜBİTAK), and circulated among UFO researchers (e.g. SIRIUS UFO group). archivosovni2.blogspot.com+2Metabunk+2
Proponents claim these objects are physical, non-CGI, and unexplained by conventional means. archivosovni2.blogspot.com
Here are some of the main lines of skeptical critique that attempt to explain or cast doubt on the authenticity of the Kumburgaz footage:
| Argument | Description | Sources / Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Reflections on Glass / Window Ghosting | Critics suggest that many of the luminous “craft” images are reflections of light sources (boats, buildings, etc.) onto a glass pane or window in front of the camera. In some video segments, rain droplet patterns on glass appear to overlay the “craft,” indicating the image may be on or behind a pane rather than out in the open. Metabunk+2Metabunk+2 | The Metabunk discussion points to drips on glass and “projected image onto glass” hypotheses. Metabunk |
| Cruise Ship / Marine Vessel Lights Hypothesis | Some suggest the lights may originate from large ships or marine vessels in the distance. The geometry, fading, and movement of lights in certain views can plausibly match distance ship lighting. Metabunk+1 | The “cruise ship lights” theory is regularly proposed in UFO forums. Metabunk |
| Optical / Lens Artifacts / Zoom Issues | Because Yalman’s camera used heavy zoom (sometimes up to 200× optical), small defects or distortions are magnified. Lens aberration, sensor artifacts, or lens vignetting might distort ordinary lights into bizarre shapes. archivosovni2.blogspot.com+2Metabunk+2 | In the Metabunk thread, users dissect how the zoom and lens may introduce curvature or distortions. Metabunk |
| Repeated Source / Same Pattern Across Dates | Critics observe that some of the same “craft shapes” recur in footage from different dates, suggesting a fixed source image (e.g. a screen or projection) rather than independently observed craft. Metabunk+1 | In the thread, one commenter notes that the “same source image” appears months apart, which is suspicious. Metabunk |
| No Conclusive Institutional Debunk Report Accessible | Some skeptics note that although TÜBİTAK was reportedly involved, there's no widely published, peer-reviewed technical refutation of the case. Proponents contest many “debunkers” misstate or misrepresent the data. archivosovni2.blogspot.com+2eurasianet.org+2 | The UFO sites often mention that Turkish scientific bodies analyzed the footage, but skeptics question the transparency and methodology. archivosovni2.blogspot.com+1 |
The UAP Files Podcast recently ran an episode titled “Turkey | Kumburgaz UFO | Debunking the Debunkers” where common skeptical explanations are challenged. Apple Podcasts+1
According to that podcast, some skeptics (such as Mick West) have proposed mirror/reflection, projection, or window artifact models. The podcast rebuts these by pointing to parts of the footage they claim are inconsistent with such models. Poddtoppen
Supporters argue those models don’t fully account for motion, lighting dynamics, or alleged “internal cabin” images.
The Kumburgaz case is not conclusively debunked, but it has strong skeptical challenges.
The burden of proof remains: supporters must demonstrate that the footage cannot plausibly arise from mundane explanations (reflections, lens artifacts, distant lights, projection).
Skeptics emphasize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — and what exists so far is not ironclad.
If you like, I can try to dig up the TÜBİTAK report (if publicly available) or compare how UFO researchers vs skeptics interpret specific frames from the Kumburgaz videos. Would you like me to do that?
Good — I’ll walk through specific, named examples from the Kumburgaz archive and show what skeptics point to in each frame and why proponents resist those explanations. I’ll cite the source images and the detailed skeptical threads so you can check the frames yourself.
An extensive single-frame archive (2007–2009) is hosted at TurkeyUFOCase (lots of labelled stills taken from the original footage). turkeyufocase.blogspot.com
The raw videos are available (archive / YouTube) and were discussed at length on the skeptic forum Metabunk (a long, multi-post technical analysis). Internet Archive+1
Below I pick three representative frames/sets that are repeatedly referenced in the debate and explain what each shows and why it matters.
Where to find: multiple 2008–2009 single-frame images in the TurkeyUFOCase archive; shown and discussed throughout the Metabunk thread. turkeyufocase.blogspot.com+1
What the frame shows
A bright, arc-shaped, slightly metallic object with a darker horizontal band or ‘stripe’ near its lower edge.
Often filmed with heavy zoom and the Moon or other bright references visible nearby.
Skeptical interpretations
Reflection/specular surface on a distant vessel (yacht/window shapes): the arc + stripe resembles the reflections off a curved window or cabin superstructure on ships. Duarte and others argued the shapes match yacht/superyacht side-windows or deck structures. Metabunk highlights this “boat window” hypothesis and shows photographic comparisons. Metabunk
Lens/zoom artifacts and distant lamp posts: when the camera is heavily zoomed, ordinary small lights become large, smeared shapes. Metabunk contributors point out nearby shoreline lamp posts and ship lights that align with angular positions in the video when the moon is used as an angular yardstick. Metabunk
Why proponents push back
Supporters say the measured elevation (using Moon angular size/position) puts the object above what a ship’s deck light could produce, arguing against the ship hypothesis. The TurkeyUFOCase site defends this with counter-calculations and the claim of TÜBİTAK analysis. turkeyufocase.blogspot.com+1
Where to find: specific 2008 frames in the single-frame archive and discussed on Metabunk / Forgetomori. turkeyufocase.blogspot.com+1
What the frame shows
In several stills you can see round “blobs” or streaks that look like water droplets or smudges in front of the lens — and the luminous object appears on the same plane as those blobs (i.e., visually overlapped by the droplets).
Skeptical interpretation
Window-pane reflection hypothesis: If the camera filmed through glass (balcony window, door, or windshield) the mysterious lights may be reflections of lights located behind the camera (hotel lights, corridor lights, or interior lamps), or lights on a boat seen via specular reflections. The presence of droplet-like artifacts overlaying the object strongly supports the reflection/foreground-glass explanation in many frames. Metabunk and the forgetomori writeup go into this in detail. Metabunk+1
Why proponents push back
Advocates argue that in some sequences the object moves independently of expected reflection geometry and exhibits motion inconsistent with a static interior reflection. They claim portions of the footage show parallax and occlusion that would be impossible if only a simple reflection were involved. The debate becomes technical and frame-by-frame. turkeyufocase.blogspot.com
Where to find: a handful of cropped stills circulated by proponents (archive links and the “possible occupants” page). turkeyufocase.blogspot.com+1
What the frame shows
Close-up stills that purport to show humanoid figures or cabin interiors within a bright, saucer-like object.
Skeptical interpretation
These are most often explained as image artifacts, compression blocks, or pareidolia (seeing faces/patterns in low-resolution noise). When you magnify low-resolution video and then re-sharpen or apply contrast, random pixels can resolve into face-like shapes. Metabunk and other skeptics warn strongly about reading “details” into heavily cropped, low-quality frames. Metabunk
Why proponents push back
Proponents argue that some of the interior frames come from higher-quality segments and that the shapes are persistent across sequential frames, making random noise less likely. They also cite witness testimony (Roger Leir interview, on-site witnesses) and the Turkish technical report as supporting that the images are not simple camera noise. turkeyufocase.blogspot.com
The Science and Technology Board of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) was referenced by advocates as lending weight to the claim the objects were “not CGI.” Skeptics on Metabunk point out that the available English translations are partial and the January 2008-dated report does not conclusively analyze all the later 2009 clips; there are ambiguities about scope and methods. The page “A Closer Look Behind the TÜBİTAK Report” summarizes these caveats. turkeyufocase.blogspot.com+1
Multiple frames show features consistent with reflections on glass, distant ship lights, lens/zoom artifacts, and compression noise. These are plausible, mundane explanations supported by geometric comparisons using the Moon and shore references (arguments developed on Metabunk). Metabunk
Some frames are more anomalous (motion, apparent shape complexity) and remain disputed; proponents use these as reasons to keep the case open. TurkeyUFOCase collects many such frames and defends their authenticity. turkeyufocase.blogspot.com
No single frame currently provides a universally accepted, unambiguous signature of an extraterrestrial craft (forensic image analysts and skeptics still favor mundane optics/geometry explanations). The debate is unresolved at the highest level because the footage is low-resolution, shot with heavy zoom, and lacks independent corroborating instrumentation.
(A) Pull a small set of three specific frames from the TurkeyUFOCase archive (I’ll give exact image filenames/links and annotate visually why skeptics read them as reflections). turkeyufocase.blogspot.com+1
(B) Extract sequences from the raw June 12, 2008 and May 15, 2009 videos and show frame-by-frame comparisons with candidate objects (lamp posts / cruise ship photos) used in the Metabunk analysis. Internet Archive+1
Tell me which (A) or (B) you prefer and I’ll fetch and annotate the specific frames and their timestamps immediately.
Best UFO case ever? Too good to be true, honestly. Or am I just being impossible? (More to follow)
Some interesting speculations in the above videos, but ChatGPT is skeptical. Perhaps rightly, since the channel seems to be Greater Hindu nationalist (Hanuman founded a kingdom in ancient Honduras yeeeeah bruh).
Is there any truth to the claim that Yazidis are actually Hindus or at least that their religion is Hindu-derived? For instance, the peacock angel (peacocks are not native to Kurdistan)?
The claim that Yazidism is derived from Hinduism or that Yazidis are "actually Hindus" is not accurate in a direct historical or theological sense, but there are some interesting parallels and shared motifs that have led people to make such claims.
Yazidism is an ancient, syncretic religion practiced by the Yazidi people, primarily in northern Iraq, with diaspora communities in Turkey, Syria, Armenia, and elsewhere. Its roots are indigenous to the Kurdish region and influenced by:
Pre-Islamic Mesopotamian religions
Zoroastrianism
Islamic Sufism
Possibly early Gnosticism or Manichaean currents
The central figure in Yazidi theology is Tawûsê Melek, the Peacock Angel.
He is considered a manifestation of the divine, a being of light who was cast down but redeemed, similar to the story of Lucifer, Prometheus, or even Shiva in certain interpretive stretches.
The peacock is not native to Kurdistan but was known in ancient Mesopotamia and the Near East through trade and royal menageries. It's native to India and Sri Lanka.
This has led some to draw a connection with Hindu deities, especially:
Kartikeya/Murugan/Skanda, who rides a peacock
Saraswati, who is also sometimes associated with peacocks
But these connections are symbolic rather than historical.
| Element | Yazidism | Possible Hindu Analogy | Reality |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peacock Angel | Tawûsê Melek | Kartikeya/Murugan | Only symbolic similarity |
| Seven angels | Divine beings under God | Sapta Rishis or Lokapalas | Common in many systems |
| Reincarnation | Present in some Yazidi beliefs | Central in Hinduism | Yazidi belief is not systematic |
| Sun veneration | Yes, prayers toward the sun | Surya worship | Found in many ancient cultures |
So while some archetypes and symbols overlap, no direct descent or influence from Hinduism has been demonstrated. Both systems draw on older Indo-European or West Asian mythic patterns that may share a distant cultural ancestry, but Yazidism evolved locally in the Fertile Crescent.
Yazidism is not Hindu and did not derive from Hinduism.
Some symbolic parallels exist (especially the Peacock Angel), but they are coincidental or archetypal rather than proof of a direct connection.
Claims that Yazidis are Hindus in disguise or should be "brought back" to Hinduism are often political or ideological, especially in the context of Hindu nationalist narratives.
Let me know if you’d like a deeper comparison between Yazidi cosmology and Vedic or Shaiva theology.
It appears that the claim about Yazidis and the creation of a "Hindu homeland" called “Kartikstan” primarily originates from viral videos, reaction channels, and fringe narratives, rather than any substantiated movement or credible policy initiative.
Here’s what the information suggests:
Multiple YouTube videos (e.g. by Inspiring Science or other channels) carry the title:
"How Turkey & Iraq Yazidis Are Trying To Create New Hindu Country 'Kartikstan'", or variations like “Yazidis Will Create a New Hindu Country 'Kartikstan'” youtube.com+9youtube.com+9youtube.com+9youtube.comyoutube.com+7youtube.com+7youtube.com+7.
These titles and content appear to be sensational, and often stem from ideologically driven or speculative online communities, not mainstream scholarship or political discussion.
The phrase "Turkey & Iraq Yazidis" likely intends to reference Yazidi communities located in Turkey and Iraq, rather than imply a coordinated Yazidi alliance with Turkey.
The notion of a new Hindu country seems to come from a fringe ideological narrative, often connected to certain Hindu-nationalist or spiritualist movements.
The name “Kartikstan” itself appears to be fabricated and not recognized by any Yazidi groups or official sources.
No credible Yazidi group or leadership has advocated for the creation of a Hindu-identified state.
Turkey has not supported such an idea—in fact, its military actions in Yazidi areas tend to be contentious and security-driven, not supportive of Yazidi autonomy or religious framing kurdistanobserver.comkurdistan24.net.
Yazidism is deeply rooted in ancient Mesopotamian, Iranian, and Kurdish traditions, not Hindu theology en.wikipedia.org.
The claim that Yazidis (in Turkey or Iraq) are creating a Hindu homeland named “Kartikstan” is not supported by any scholarly or political evidence.
It appears to be a misinformation or sensational interpretation, possibly arising from online ideological or religious groups rather than genuine Yazidi intentions.
If you come across any official statements or reputable reporting on this, I’d be happy to re-evaluate them!
