Wednesday 27 January 2016

Ben Emlyn-Jones on the Kev Baker Show 5

I have been interviewed again on the Kev Baker Show (aka MrGlasgowTruther) on Truth Frequency Radio, see here for the podcasts: and:
Subjects discussed include: the twentieth anniversary of the Varginha alien incident, the "Brazilian Roswell". Other strange and scary UFO events in Brazil. Also we discuss the discovery of Planet X.
See here for my previous appearance on the Kev Baker Show:

Wednesday 20 January 2016

UFO's Abductions and 9/11

UFO's Abductions and 9/11 is an independent short film by Neil Geddes-Ward featuring Philip Kinsella, Andrew Johnson and myself. See here for the film:
As you can see, the interviewer is me. Philip Kinsella is a psychic medium, an author about extraterrestrials and experiencer of alien contact, see: See here for Neil's previous film in which I interview Philip: Andrew Johnson is an engineer and computer scientist who researches 9/11, free energy, the secret space programme, evidence for extraterrestrial life and intelligence, and many other related topics. See: See here for my HPANWO Radio interview with Andrew:

Monday 18 January 2016


I've spoken many times before about the Apollo moon landings; see the background links at the bottom. Despite the doubts I've raised, along with many others, about the official record of man's supposed first adventure to another world, none of us have ever unearthed a complete alternative narrative. This does not mean that the moon landings were real, just that the truth still remains hidden. One suggestion that has become very popular in recent years is that the fake moon footage was directed by Stanley Kubrick. The idea comes from several documentaries that were made over the last few years including this spoof, see: I have my reservations about this theory, but I'm studying Carl James' material on the matter, see: Then a few weeks ago a supposed interview with Stanley Kubrick appeared that was an alleged deathbed confession; in fact it was nothing of the sort, see: In that article I suggested that it might be a piece of viral marketing for a new feature film that had premiered at the South by Southwest film festival in Texas last year and was due for released in mid-January. It's called Moonwalkers. The movie is about the faking of the moon landings and the involvement of Stanley Kubrick so I was very keen to watch it. I looked out for it in the cinema to no avail. I then found out that it had been released, but not to the big screen anywhere. A company called Alchemy had bought the distribution rights and it was only available on their pay-per-view online platform, see: I tried to watch it but was told it was not available in my country. My only option therefore was to go to a pirate video site where it was shared. I don't feel comfortable doing that and I won't be posting a link to the page; but I had been willing to pay $US6.99 rental at first and I'll buy the DVD when it's released. If the distributors want to block UK viewers' access to it, then what do they expect?

Moonwalkers is a slapstick black comedy by a new director called Antoine Bardou-Jacquet; With a name like that I'm guessing he, or she, is French. It has a fairly simple plot about an attempt by the American government to fake the moon landing footage on the eve of the Apollo 11 mission. The film makes it clear that the Apollo 11 rocket is being sent to the moon, but that the NASA officials are concerned that the astronauts won't be able to land there and will only be able to orbit the moon; or they might be killed in an accident. The fake footage is a back-up if the real thing can't be pulled off. They employ a CIA agent called Mr Kidman to approach Stanley Kubrick and ask him to do the job. Mr Kidman is played brilliantly by Ron Perlman. He's a large hard-bitten undercover specialist who is haunted by nightmares about his service in Vietnam. He's prone to violent outbursts and knocks out almost all the other characters at one point or another. He contacts Kubrick though his agent in London. However, because of a mishap he end up approaching Jonny, the agent's cousin, who is the hard-up manager of a rock band, played by Rupert Grint of Harry Potter fame. Jonny decides on impulse to play along with Kidman's error and persuades his flatmate Leon to disguise himself as Kubrick when they meet with Kidman to make the arrangements. Eventually Kidman discovers that they were impostors and hunts them down, but by then it's too late to go back and so he has no option but to let Jonny and Leon make the lunar visual record. They employ their friend Renatus, who is a rural bon viveur and bohemian film maker. The rest of the film follows the characters' abortive and inept attempts to film the fake Apollo moon landings. The movie is essentially a parody of 1960's culture. Most of the characters are caricatures of the young generation of that era. They are all hippies and take drugs; a few are addicts, including Leon who has to pass as Stanley Kubrick. They wear bright clothes... when they're not walking around naked, and surround themselves with psychedelic art. The score is mostly contemporary pop songs. Moonwalkers has been hit with some rock bottom reviews, but regular readers will know what I think of "duh cwittix", see: The film is quite amusing in places, but some of the flower power jokes did become rather tiresome and predictable. It's also a very violent film with a couple of gruesome shootouts and punch ups. Along with the scenes of constant drug abuse, it will get an 18 certificate for sure when it released over here. In the end their plan to fake the moon landings fails abysmally; it had to with such incompetent perpetrators. However it doesn't matter because the real moon landings are achieved anyway, making the insurance unnecessary. So this is a film which not only lampoons the idea of moon landing conspiracy theories, but has a serious moral in its finale that supports NASA's official story of human exploration of the moon. Moonwalkers is a reasonable movie, if you're in the mood for a chuckle at the expense of the swinging sixties, but it's disappointing if you're expecting a whistle-blowing satire. This is no new Capricorn One. It's not in any way informing or thought-provoking about alternative views of the Apollo moon landings. In fact its ridicule may well repel viewers from further investigation... Maybe that's the idea.

Trump n' Sanders

2016 is the year of the US presidential election. Once again the two-party system is in turmoil as the Illuminati-controlled Virginia Company selects its new public relationship officer in a way to make it look as if "the people have a choice in this democracy!", and various other warm and fuzzy buzz words from which a politician can take their pick when making a speech. The process to elect a new President of the United States is very different and far more complicated than a British general election. The United States of America has an executive branch of government that is separate from the legislative Congress, the equivalent of our Houses of Parliament. In the UK the head of government, the prime minister, is simply the leader of the governing party in the House of Commons; whereas the USA chooses its leader in a separate election. The USA is a republic and the president fulfils the roles of both head of government and head of state; in Britain we have a monarchy and the Queen is the head of state. The election of a new President has to take into account that the United States is a federation, not a singular country, and so each state cooperates to create the US Electoral College, a board of 538 electors who together decide who will be the US President and Vice President. Each party nominates a series of candidates who have to compete against each other in the first round of elections called the presidential primaries and caucuses; these traditionally take place between February and June of an election year. After that the main presidential election goes ahead with the "nominations", the final winners of the parties' primaries and caucuses, battling it out for the voting day itself, which is usually in November. Right now it appears a major upset is underway because the two most popular candidates are Bernie Sanders for the Democrats and Donald Trump for the GOP. This situation reminds me somewhat of the Ron Paul phenomenon of the previous election and also the freak triumph of Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, see:

Bernie Sanders is what Americans would call a radical liberal, and what in the UK would be known as a socialist. He has supported leftist causes his whole life, being advocate for black civil rights and colleague of Dr Martin Luther King. He supports feminism, LGBT rights and universal public healthcare; something we're losing in Britain right now, see: An interesting bit of trivia is that I know his brother Larry. Larry Sanders lives in east Oxford and is a long term Green Party councillor. His son Jacob Sanders has also sat on the council. Larry is quite likeable, a gentle Jewish academic kind of man. I want to school with his daughter Anna and, if I recall correctly, she was rather less amiable, to put it mildly, see: His brother Bernie's commitment to racial equality is often met with extreme ingratitude by the people he wants to help, see: It's sad that Bernie Sanders may well have helped free those idiotic little girls' fathers from jail or carried them away injured from a police riot line. Donald Trump is another ideological maverick at the other extreme. He is an arch conservative and very vocal about right wing populist issues like immigration, crime and the military. He is a rich businessman who owns a chain of estate agents and also a golf resort in Scotland. He became a TV star recently by presenting the American version of the TV show The Apprentice, see: Like Sanders, he has a mantle of sincerity. He's a big, loveable buffoon, a loud and jolly Scottish-American pub-crawler with his disregard for political correctness and his shock of dyed blond hair. He's a sharp contrast to Sanders' quiet Jewish heartfelt grandfatherly kindness and dedication to the welfare of the downtrodden. However I think those two men have a lot more in common with each other than either of them do with the woman who will eventually defeat them both.
It's a perennial question: In a world where we can supposedly choose our rulers, why do we never end up with rulers we actually like? Democracy is one of the most evocative words in the English language; it is loaded down like no other with emotional, cultural and political baggage. Wars have been fought over democracy which have cost the lives of millions. Some people will start weeping at the very mention of the word. The quest for democracy has produced some of the most dramatic tales in history, from the Chartists to the Suffragettes to Mandela. We're told that democracy is the ideal form of government, the end goal of historical politics. Yet most democratic countries, even very old democracies, are suffering from a malaise. Democratic governments have a major credibility problem in their relationship with their citizens; some political leaders even have approval ratings in single figures. Cynicism is endemic and electoral turnout is low. Citizens will more often find themselves voting for negative reasons instead of positive; they’ll vote in order to keep somebody they don’t like out of office, rather than to elect somebody they do like. Democratic countries today are ruled by some of the most loathsome people imaginable. They are almost all cruel, stupid, selfish, weak, cowardly, corrupt and amoral; and, despite the fact that nominally we can “choose our leaders”, these kinds of people always rise to the top and nobody seems to know why, let alone how to stop them. The next President of the United States is one such person. A lot of fuss is being made at the moment about Donald Trump calling for the banning of Muslims from entering the USA. The British parliament are even debating whether to ban him from the UK (this would be an interesting situation if he were to win). There's a petition that currently has over half a million signatures demanding that, see: Hilary Clinton is the wife of President Bill Clinton who did a two term stint through the 1990's. She is the current US Secretary of State under President Obama and has supported his continuation of the "War on Terror"; this includes drone strikes in Pakistan and the regime change in Libya. After Libya's former leader Muammar Gaddafi was murdered in the street by a lynch mob she said: "We came, we saw, he died!" and laughs as if it were a big joke. Not only Gaddafi, but thousands of innocent Libyans were killed in that war, one her government deliberately stirred up. Ask any Muslim in the Middle East: would you rather be banned from entering the United States or have your wife and kids blown to pieces by a missile from a drone? Guess what reply you'd get. So why are Parliament not debating a ban on Hillary entering the country? Hillary claims that her presidency will include transparency on the UFO issue and this has impressed the Disclosure campaigner Stephen Bassett, but personally I'm far more dubious, see: (On a positive note, when Hilary gets elected I've promised to remake my controversial Obama Disclosure video dressed as her! See: Hilary is the chosen one. What we are going to see over the next few months is a sudden and inexplicable decline in the public presence of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. By November their very names will be virtually forgotten. Hillary will face some Republican non-entity like Rick Santorum or Ted Cruz, whom she will walk over with ease to become the first female President of the United States. Feminists will vote for Hillary for no other reason than her gender just like black people voted for Obama, virtually to a man, out of the same principle. Her status as a woman will disarm many of her opponents in the same way that Obama being black disarmed his; "Don't criticize the President, you racist!" If all else fails Donald Trump could always go for a walk in the woods like Dr David Kelly... and Bernie Sanders is getting on a bit in years; nobody lives forever you know! This is more of a warning than a prediction. It can be stopped, but only if the American people wake up to the forces truly controlling their nation.

Saturday 16 January 2016

Ben Emlyn-Jones on Enemy Within Radio 20

I have been interviewed again on Enemy Within Radio with Thomas Barnes, this show is part of the Truth Frequency Radio network, see:
I am featured for the entire two hour programme and subjects discussed include: UFO Disclosure, life extension, sleep paralysis, the US presidential election and much much more.
See here for my previous appearance on Enemy Within Radio, see:

Friday 15 January 2016

Ben Emlyn-Jones on KCOR's Exploring the Bizarre

I have been interviewed on the Exploring the Bizarre show on the KCOR Digital Radio Network with Tim Beckley and Tim Swartz. See (right click and select "save as" to download as MP3):
See here for the show's page:
Subjects discussed include: the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident, the Roswell Incident, the Warminster Thing, the Alien Autopsy film and much more.

Wednesday 13 January 2016

UFO Truth Magazine- Issue 16

UFO Truth Magazine Issue 16 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 16 includes an article in my column, entitled: The Gairy Initiative. The modern Disclosure movement is not the first. A similar initiative was started by the prime minister of Grenada, Sir Eric Gairy, in 1975.

Also you will find in Issue 16: a report on UFO conferences in Italy and Brazil, new ideas on consciousness and alien technology, a disc-shaped object escorts police car in Poland, 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 15:

Tuesday 5 January 2016

Paracas Skulls are not Human

The Paracas skulls were unearthed in 1928 by the archaeologist Julio Tello. From the moment they were first examined there has been debate over them because they are an extremely unusual shape and are heavier than normal human skulls. The upper part of the cranium is extended backwards and upwards instead of being the natural shape. Making somebody's head an unusual shape can be achieved by binding the head of a baby before the sections of the upper skull have joined together. This used to be carried out by many ancient cultures and was done for cosmetic reasons. Sometimes an unnaturally shaped head was a status symbol and only the children of the elite classes or priesthood would be granted it. Contrary to what you might think, artificially warping an infant's head involves no negative health risks, however once the alteration is done and the bones of the skull are set, the process cannot be reversed. The Paracas skulls are different from other examples of artificial cranial deformation because of their extreme difference from normal and the way they have added weight and size as well as altered shape. Then a few days ago the archaeologist and ancient alien researcher Brian Foerster announced that he'd organized DNA tests on the skulls that indicate that they are not human, or not completely human. He reported that: "...the mitochondrial DNA (from the mother) presented mutations unknown to any man, primate or any other animal... the mutations suggested we are dealing with a completely new human-like being, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals or Denisovans." The skeptics have responded, but their dismissal is very ad hominem and addresses mostly the supposed personal flaws of Mr Forester's character and credibility rather than the actual information he's provided. Forester says the DNA tests were done privately and anonymously. The results were not published in any accredited scientific journal, but were announced by him independently. Source: This is understandable purely because whoever had the expertise to carry out DNA tests on these skulls, which are almost three thousand years old, probably earns a living in an existing job. They might not want to risk their livelihood by going public. The case against Brian Foerster also fails to take into account two highly significant correlations. One is the Starchild skull. This was from a body found in Mexico some distance away, and it's from about two millennia later than the Paracas ones, but the study project on that has been far more developed and has produced much more evidence. It does suggest that there was, and maybe still is, an extraterrestrial biological presence in the American continents, and it's been there for thousands of years, see background links below. What's more the Paracas people lived close to a very interesting society that emerged a few centuries later, the Nazca culture. These people are world famous for drawing huge diagrams and pictures on the flat surface of a desert many miles across. They can only be seen properly from at least several thousand feet up in the air. This meant that the Nazcans were creating this enormous work of art specifically for the benefit of individuals who were up in the sky; because it would be invisible to them on the ground. So I think we should take Brian Foerster's claim far more seriously than the skeptics are saying, and wait for more information. There also other occasions where human remains of a very abnormal shape or size have appeared, see background links.

Monday 4 January 2016

Hillary talks UFO's

The next President of the United States of America is going to be Hillary Clinton. She is the "chosen one", I have no doubt. They've had a black man and now they're going to play the political correctness card again by having a woman. Two days before New Year I uploaded the last instalment in my HPANWO TV film series UFO Disclosure 2015, in which I discussed a letter written to her by Stephen Bassett, see: Steve urges Hillary to do what her predecessors have failed to do and become the Disclosure President. He says to her: "Madam Secretary... what the American people need is less legacy and more truth. The people have lost patience with 'in loco parentis' government that treats them like children and candidates with long lists of issues they can't discuss because it is not convenient to their campaign or the people 'can't handle the truth.' Because you have been introduced to these matters within the context of the White House (through the Rockefeller Initiative), because you aspire to the highest office in the nation, you have an extraordinary opportunity and primary obligation to address what is easily the most profound issue of our time..." At the time I uploaded the video, Hillary Clinton had made no response to him; but now she has, albeit indirectly. Perhaps it was the influence of her campaign manager John Podesta, who is very open to the ideas of UFO's and whom Steve has advised us to "Google his name regularly!", see:

The weekend after New Years Day while speaking at a public meeting in New Hampshire, she told a reporter, Daymond Steer, that she will get to the bottom of the UFO phenomenon. As long ago as 2007, Hillary had confirmed that her husband President Bill Clinton received more Freedom-of-Information Act requests related to UFO's than any other subject. Nick Pope has confirmed that the same happened at the UK Ministry of Defence. Master Clinton has also made several cryptic references to UFO's in his interviews and public speeches. He responded to a letter from a thirteen year old boy from Belfast, Northern Ireland called Ryan who asked him about the Roswell Incident, see: He also mentioned the subject during his interview with Jimmy Kimmel, see: It's possible he's not as ignorant as he pleads. Hillary's own interview on the Jimmy Kimmel Show consisted mostly of tiresome feminist jokes and she never uttered a peep about UFO's, see: Yet just a few days later she is saying she's going to "get to the bottom" of the matter? She also pledges that if she gets elected in November she will "look into Area 51". Apparently Bill did that too and found no aliens there, but I doubt they had them on display for him to see. What's interesting about the language Hillary uses is that she also talks about assembling a "task force" to enter Area 51. Was she serious or joking?... Or maybe she was half joking. The old man known as "Agent Kewper" said during his deathbed confession that President Eisenhower had a similar plan, see: This indicates something I've addressed before about a comment made by the lawyer who represented Robert Frost and his colleagues, a class action lawsuit by some men who had served at Area 51 and become ill as a result: "I don't know (if there are aliens at Area 51), my client never saw any; but it wouldn't surprise me. You must realize that place is a legal black hole. It operates above Congressional oversight, above executive oversight; hell, even the US President himself cannot enter it without permission. One is forced to consider whether it is even part of the United States at all, and might instead be an enclave of some kind of 'super-government'." (My emphasis). These are astounding words, but they are potentially accurate. My friend and fellow researcher Gary Heseltine, the editor of UFO Truth Magazine, see:, has commented to the Daily Mirror: "I am well aware of the Rockefeller initiative and that both the Clintons were heavily involved in it. It was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would be asked questions about her links to it and I am pleased that she has responded to them. She cannot run away from those links so she really has to embrace it in order to remain credible. It will be interesting to see how much of a political issue it will become in her presidential campaign.", see: It most certainly will be. Interestingly, at the bottom of the above news article there is a readers' poll which asks: "Is there a UFO cover-up?" Over five hundred people have voted and the figures are an encouraging YES- 83% No- 17%.

Sunday 3 January 2016

Dubai Skyscraper Fire

In New York on September the 11th 2001 three buildings completely disintegrated supposedly due to the damage suffered by the impact of aircraft, two cases, and the subsequent fire; only that in the case of Building Seven. At the time World Trade Centres One and Two were the world's tallest buildings, yet some minor structural damage together with fires stoked by a small amount of jet fuel and office furniture, turned them into a huge cloud of dust and a thin scattering of rubble within a couple of hours. Since then fire as bad as the WTC ones, and worse, have struck down several buildings around the world, and I've made careful note of them:
There have been others such as the Olimp Hotel in Grozny, Chechnya; and the St Peter's Road block in Kingston-upon-Thames, England. The best known and worst case is the Windsor Tower in Madrid that was completely burnt out by an enormous conflagration; yet even then the core structure of the building survived. On New Year's Eve 2015 we had yet another 9/11 no-show, this time in a building constructed since 2001 that is comparable in size to the old World Trade Centre.

The city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is the most ambitious urban planning project in the world; a kind of Milton Keynes writ large. Apparently a quarter of all the building cranes in the world can be found in Dubai and it has even created artificial islands in the shapes of palm trees and maps of the world. It's a showcase of Middle Eastern oil-soaked opulence. The Address Downtown Burj Dubai was completed in 2008 and was at the time the sixth tallest building in the city; today it is the 19th tallest. At 991 feet it is only 377 feet shorter than the WTC Twin Towers. It is made up of a mixture of residential flats and the Address Downtown Hotel. On New Year's Eve 2015 over a hundred thousand people were gathered in the streets of Dubai's spectacular city centre to see in the New Year with a street party and fireworks display. Then smoke and flames were seen to issue from the Address Downtown; this quickly spread to the entire building making it clearly a far worse blaze than any other skyscraper fire that I've noted before, except the Windsor Tower. When a high-rise structure catches fire it creates a particularly dramatic scene; this was what inspired the famous 1974 disaster movie The Towering Inferno, see: This film used to be shown regularly on TV, but I've not seen it scheduled for quite a while... for some reason. The emergency services attended the scene and fortunately managed to evacuate all the people in the building; sixteen people were treated for smoke inhalation and one man suffered a heart attack due to the stress, but nobody was killed and all the casualties have recovered. The New Year's firework display went ahead as planned, although it must have been dampened a bit by the huge pall of smoke and the fire still issuing from the building while the fire brigade sprayed it with water. The flames were eventually extinguished, but on New Year's Day morning some smoke was still visible wafting from the high rise. The authorities in Dubai are now trying to work out what caused the fire. Source: By looking at it, you can see that the Address Downtown is severely scorched and they're definitely going to have to call the builders in big time, but there appears to be no major damage to the building's walls and structural integrity. My money is on the tower being renovated and reopened within a few months. This Wikipedia page has a list of skyscraper fires for a period of a hundred and ten years (Not all of them; it doesn't include St Peter's Road for example): There are only three examples noted where fire damage led to "instant full structural collapse"; and even that is a false statement because WTC's 1,2 and 7 did not collapse at all, they turned into a huge cloud of dust, see background links below. Every time one of these incidents takes place, along with the scientific investigation by Dr Judy Wood into the true cause of the WTC destruction, it becomes more and more obvious that the official story of 9/11 is a complete charade.

Saturday 2 January 2016

Boleskine House Fire

I'm sorry to report that Boleskine House has been badly damaged by a fire. The single storey manor house stands on the steep wooded shores of Loch Ness and was built in 1760 as a hunting lodge for Col. Archibald Campbell Fraser of the Clan Fraser Lovat. Boleskine House gained a reputation as a cursed place from the start. It was built on the site of a church that had caught fire during the middle of a service killing most of the congregation. It is famous for being the home of Aleister Crowley, the famous occultist who dubbed himself "The Beast 666". Crowley bought the house off the Fraser Lovats in 1899 because he needed somewhere secluded and quiet to perform one of his magickal spells. The Abramelin Working is a ritual in which you can conjure up spirits, including your guardian angel. The ritual takes at least six months to perform in a very carefully controlled environment and must be done with great care. The consequences of mistakes can be very dangerous. Any ritual that involves the opening of a portal, a gateway between our universe and the world of the spirits, is potentially hazardous because if it is not rigourously controlled it can allow free access to our universe for beings that should not have it; malevolent and destructive spirits, demons, the djinn, incubi etc. These entities can do a lot of damage when let loose on our world. The final segment of the ritual is where the magician gives the spirits "licence to depart"; this means that he or she sends them out of our universe and back into the one whence they came, and shuts the door behind them so they can't get back in. Crowley, despite his great power and skills, was a very selfish and big-headed individual, and he could be highly irresponsible. In the middle of his performance of the Abramelin Working he received an urgent telegram from his lawyer in Paris warning him that he was about to be sued by a group of his former friends in a magickal organization he used to run. Crowley dropped everything and rushed away to Paris... leaving the Abramelin Working unfinished. He did not give the spirits licence to depart and did not close the portal he had opened. In such a situation a magician would need to go back to the location and carry out another healing ritual to banish the demons and shut the portal, but Crowley never did this. In fact he hardly ever went back to Boleskine House until he sold the place in 1913. He died in 1947 never having fixed the leak at Boleskine. Source: A Magick Life by Martin Booth, see:

Nobody else has ever attended to the blunder at Boleskine and there's no reason to think that the portal is not still open today. I suspect that what is being done at the moment at CERN is a deliberate attempt to do what Aleister Crowley did at Boleskine House, open portals into other universes; only this time it's being done on purpose, an act of spiritual vandalism. See background links below for more details. Strange and frightening events are reported frequently from Boleskine, and in 1965 the owner at the time committed suicide on the property. In 1970 the house was sold to Jimmy Page, the rock star and aficionado of all things related to Crowleyanity. Page has also bought up most of Crowley's library, a massive and priceless collection of books on the occult, spirituality and the supernatural. It's interesting that during the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in 2008 there was a crypto-Satanic ritual involving himself and the singer Leona Lewis. The two perform the song Whole Lotta Love, one of the best known tracks produced by Page's band Led Zeppelin; for a long time it was the theme tune to Top of the Pops. This represents the alchemical wedding between the Devil and the Goddess, see here for details: (Scroll down about half way). Page sold the property in 1992 and moved all Crowley's books out, which is just as well seeing as what was to happen later. Since then Boleskine House has changed hands a few times and has been used as a holiday residence by its owners who were a rich Dutch family; and it was a hotel for a while. It lay abandoned for some time but was then brought by a lady who planned to renovate it and put up some new buildings. However on the day before Christmas Eve 2015 a huge fire broke out there. The smoke from it was spotted at 1.40 PM by motorists on the A82 which runs along the far shore of Loch Ness. The fire brigade used six hosepipes for two hours in order to bring the fire under control, but by then sixty percent of the house was destroyed. Luckily the house was empty at the time and nobody was hurt. Source: Nothing has been published in the media about the cause of the fire; it's possible the fire brigade are still investigating. Could the house's spooky reputation be connected to the fire? It can't be ruled out seeing as there are recorded paranormal incidents of ghosts that start fires, see: Incidentally this may be related to the frightening phenomenon of SHC- spontaneous human combustion; I'll be covering that in detail in an upcoming post. The current owners are very upset by the fire. They had just finished doing a lot of building work on the property and had hoped to put it on the market this year. They commented: "We spent a lot of money, stripping it back to the bare walls and re-roofing it... It is unlikely it will ever be rebuilt unless there is someone out there with an interest in the occult wanting to spend a lot of money." I hope Boleskine House will be rebuilt one day; if I had the cash myself I'd consider donating it. Maybe Jimmy Page will; if you're reading this, Jimmy. Or perhaps the magickal legacy of Aleister Crowley, "the most evil man in Britain!", has finally come to an end. Whatever the fate of Boleskine House, whoever decides to use it for anything, they need to gather some qualified people to perform a healing ritual and shut that portal, the one that was so recklessly left open by Crowley all those years ago. If this had been carried out before, then the fire might not have happened.       

Friday 1 January 2016

New Star Wars Movie

The new instalment of the Star Wars movie series has been one of the most anticipated and promoted extravaganzas in cinematic history. George Lucas released the first of the seven films in 1977, Star Wars- Episode IV, a New Hope. This was followed by two sequels in 1980 and 83, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Because the first film was the fourth episode of an ongoing story, Lucas then began working on a trilogy of prequels, the first of which hit the screens in 1999. These provided the back story to what took place in the original trilogy. The last of these, Episode III, Revenge of the Sith came out in 2005 and there has been nothing more until now. However this new film is very different; it is a sequel to the entire original series, episodes one to six. Star Wars- Episode VII, the Force Awakens is set about thirty years after the destruction of the second Death Star, the restoration of the Galactic Republic and the fall of the Empire; this we saw at the end of Episode VI, Return of the Jedi. Now a new threat faces the Republic, the emergence of a regime similar to the old Empire called the "First Order". It declares war on the Republic and attacks it. For the first time, George Lucas is not directing. Instead he has sold the franchise to Disney and they assigned JJ Abrams. Abrams has recently done an excellent job making a run of new Star Trek movies, but when I heard he was to direct Star Wars I was dubious. Star Trek is very much rooted in the mainstream science fiction genre, but Star Wars is not. Star Wars is often described as a sci-fi story, but I wouldn't call it that. It has science fiction elements, but at its basic level it is more of a sword and sorcery tale. It would be very easy to remake Star Wars in a mediaeval European fantasy setting without significantly altering the plot. It has mystical features that Star Trek doesn't. The run up to the film's release was awash with promotion and publicity, including a new Star Wars channel on TV where you can watch the existing movies back-to-back. There was no single premiere, just a one-off explosive first night. It was shown to the astronauts on board the International Space Station at the same time; something that has never been done before.

I didn't feel the need to see the new Star Wars movie straight away as soon as it was released. As a child I was obsessed with the franchise and owned all the plastic toys and figures. I would have been champing at the bit if the film had come out back then. I realized I didn't really have time to go and see it until after Christmas, but I also knew that this wasn't a problem because it would be on show in cinemas for ages. So I went to see the early morning showing today, New Year's Day. I went with my twenty year old daughter Louisa who has already seen it with her boyfriend and friends, but she never dumped any spoilers on me and so neither shall I with you, dear HPANWO reader... I was relieved to see that Abrams has respected the customary memes of the franchise; the titles showing words moving through space like a giant spacecraft were there as well as John Williams' definitive theme. At the end of the film the closing titles also played the theme in its more upbeat working, almost Wild West in feel. This film was very different to the prequel trilogy and that was good. I enjoyed Episodes I, II and III, but my feelings for them were lukewarm compared to the originals I'd loved as a child. I wasn't alone in the impression that the prequels lacked something. The Force Awakens does not; in fact it's far closer in style to the original series than the prequels. Unlike the prequels it doesn't visually overwhelm the viewer with very complex camerawork and excessive detail. It has great special effects, but it uses them more sparingly and appropriately, and less ostentatiously. It also warmly reintroduces the viewer to most of the major protagonists from the original trilogy, all of whom are played by the same cast. They were mostly absent from the prequels simply because the setting was before their lives began. I checked to see and was delighted to find out that the former hospital porter, Peter Mayhew, was brought in once again to animate the furry body of Chewbacca, see: The Force Awakens also introduces three new principle characters. One is a young woman called Rey who lives on the planet Jakku, which is a desert planet very similar to Tatooine. She works as a scrap metal dealer and lives in poverty with barely enough food to eat. Her life changes forever when she meets the second of the new protagonists, Finn. Finn is a stormtrooper fighting for the First Order and he is the first one ever to display personality behind his imperial-style white helmet and body armour. He mutinies when he is ordered to kill civilians in a village on Jakku, something I wish real soldiers would do more often, see: Then he has to go on the run and meets up with Rey who befriends him. It turns out that the Force is strong with both of them, although they only find out during the course of the story. The third newcomer is the principle antagonist, Kylo Ren who is essentially a new Darth Vader. He was a former paduan, a trainee Jedi, who has turned to the Dark Side of the Force. Like Darth Vader he is also closely related one of the major protagonists. The First Order is ruled over by a creature that looks like Gollum or an Orc, beings envisaged by JRR Tolkien. The First Order is interesting because although it uses a lot of the old Empire's hardwear; uniforms, weapons, spacecraft etc, it has quite an ecclesiastical feel to it. Kylo Ren's clothes are very like those of a traditional priest and his lightsabre has two small side blades making it look like a cross. Its blades also flicker like fire; it looks a bit like the burning cross symbol of the Ku Klux Klan. When consulting with the Gollum-like being you can hear monastic chanting in the background. In an inversion of Darth Vader, Ren continuously feels the seduction of the Light Side of the Force and has to fight hard to resist it.
I don't think it's a spoiler to reveal that the storyline of this latest movie Star Wars- Episode VII, the Force Awakens is fairly similar to that of the first movie Star Wars- Episode IV, a New Hope. Along with the familiar style, this will satisfy viewers who are nostalgic for the classic Star Wars experience. There are plenty of weird alien creatures, blaster shoot-outs, lightsabre duels and spaceship dogfights. However I was surprised to see that few of the spaceship battles took place in space; all the major ones were carried out close to a planet's surface, within its atmosphere. Therefore the vehicles functioned much more like aircraft than spacecraft. This surprised me, but didn't disappoint me. The dogfights were outstanding and they were fought among the wreckage of crashed imperial starships, in the sky above ancient monuments and in between snowy mountains. The First Order has a secret super-weapon just like the old Empire which had its Death Stars; however the First Order's is far more terrible than the Death Star. Like the Death Star is it a giant cannon, but it is ten times as big. It is not built on an artificial space station, but is actually adapted from a real natural planet, a planet with life on it. This I found very disturbing. The planet they used has basically been turned into a celestial cyborg. This is a very New World Order-ish thing to. Does the First Order signify the Illuminati? There was something else about the film that I found annoying and I wonder if I was imagining the clich├ęd stench of political correctness. Finn is played by a black actor, John Boyega, and he is very good indeed. I hope JJ Abrams cast Boyega because of his considerable merit. However, could Boyega have been given the role simply through affirmative action because he is black? Does this mean if he happened not to have been such a good actor he might still have got the part anyway, maybe elbowing out a better white actor? There's no way to be sure, but I hope not. As I said, fancy special effects are used more conservatively in this film than in the prequel run. The final scene of the movie appears to have no SFX at all and is shot on location at Skellig Michael, the ruins of an ancient monastery on an isolated island off the coast of Ireland. It's famous for its long flight of stone steps and we see Rey ascending them in the film. Other locations were the United Arab Emirates and Iceland, but the studio work was all done at the Pinewood facility in England, where the other Star Wars movies were made. All in all I think this is probably the best ever Star Wars movie. I did not walk into the cinema this morning expecting to come out saying that. JJ Abrams has done a brilliant job creating a new adventure in the best traditions of George Lucas' franchise. In a sense I think Star Wars has gone back to its roots. I look forward to the future movies planned; I know there will be at least two more.