UFO Conjectures

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Harry Truman and UFOs


President Harry S. Truman dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands Japanese, men, women, and children; this to end World War II in the Pacific.

This despicable act was followed by the establishment of the security apparatuses that closed off government information under the rubric of Top Secret.

(See A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the origins of the National Security State, 1945-1954 By Michael J. Hogan)

Truman wasn’t the Missouri bumpkin that was his façade. He was a Machiavellian apparatchik who established an American apparat.

And that apparat allowed, even fostered, foreign intrusions into the United States government.

But that for another time…

The point here is that Truman had an inordinate interest in flying saucers, and did much to discover what they were as he tried to create a U.S. military presence that consisted of flying sauce-like craft.

That he dissembled when he discussed flying saucers, even as he was pressing his apparat to find out their origin, can be seen in this news-clip – note the subtle but obvious obsession that he provides:


The so-called MJ-12 documents may be bogus, but they represent, by inadvertent co-incidence, a group or groups that Truman established to discover the nature of flying saucers.

The 1953 Robertson Panel, instigated by the CIA, was an extrapolation of Truman’s covert interest in flying saucers, which the CIA and its predecessor, the OSS, carried out from 1945 until the present day.


(Bureaucracies have a life of their own.)

Truman, as progenitor of the U.S. government’s interest in flying saucers and UFOs, set in motions the NSA’s interest (beginning in 1952) and caused the Army (its Military Intelligence Division) and the Navy (its Office of Naval Intelligence) to make forays into the UFO mystery.

Eventually, the Air Force took part in investigating UFOs, but it has always been the CIA where the focal point of the phenomenon has been.


(Naval Research has been primarily responsible for the attempts to duplicate UFO technology, as we note elsewhere.)

Truman knew that flying saucers existed, and that they had a tangibility which indicated their origin was somewhere outside the United States.

His obsession, masked as it was publicly, spurred various agencies of the United States government to pursue the matter, which they do even now, despite the canard that the Air Force abandoned their effort after the 1968 Condon Committee report.

Ufologists would do well to examine the archives and private memoranda and letters of Truman, a man who could kill whole populations and who could keep hidden any material that might tell the public they are being visited by extraterrestrials or a phenomenon with origins closer to home.


  • I agree fully that Truman was very interested in UFOs and I think the fly over in 1952 of D.C. may have been a message from the pilots of the craft. I think it scared him. The very idea that they seemed to play cat and mouse with the interceptors could have been an indication that they knew what type of pot they were stirring.

    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Thursday, June 28, 2007  

  • Joseph,

    As usual, we think you're right.

    The Washington D.C. UFOs seemed to have "playful" intelligence -- or something more devious.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 28, 2007  

  • I DEEPLY resent the rhetoric you employ here in referring to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a "deplorable act" as well as characterizing Pres. Truman as a man who could destroy "whole populations." The implication you seem to be making is the one that most ill-informed, childishly naive pundits of the past make in regards to the atomic bombings of Japan; namely, that Truman (and by the extension the United States) commited an immoral, criminal act regardless of context... i.e., that Truman's action was somehow one-sided, as if there was no terrible, ghastly war going on within which to place what he did. The truth of the matter is that Truman--being a man who had himself served in combat (in WWI)--knew the horrors of war better than any armchair theorists (such as yourself or selves) and knew what a blessing it is to bring a rapid end to any war. The atomic bombs did just that: they served to end the most terrible war in the history of mankind in about a week, instead of what would surely have taken months and many, many more thousands of lives. The fact that Japan was totally unwilling to surrender at the time is borne out when one realizes that it required the dropping of two atomic bombs to force Japan's capitulation... and even then a great many die-hards in the Japanese military and government wanted to keep on fighting, to preserve honor with a great, all-out battle in the home islands. Rest assured that without the shock of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war would have carried on for months, perhaps another year, with a bloodletting of casualties that would have paled previous battles in the war. The fact is, also, that more people were killed in the fire-bombing of Tokyo, for instance, than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet the partial destruction of Tokyo and the near-total destruction of several other Japanese cities prior to Hiroshima did not move the Japanese in the least towards surrender. The simple truth is that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while terrible tragedies, brought a swift end to that awful war, sacrificing the lives (sadly) of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians for what surely would have been the lives of not only thousands upon thousands of American soldiers but also thousands, perhaps a million (or more) other Japanese casualties (should an invasion of Japan have taken place). Furthermore, even if the war had only been protracted a bit longer, that would have still meant many more Americans and Japanese killed than otherwise might have been. Let's remember that the war was still going on for that entire period when the bombings took place; ships were still being sunk, people were still dying all throughout Asia, and other Japanese cities were still being bombed conventionally. My own father was serving in the Pacific at the time, as a bomber pilot, and could have easily lost his life if the war had dragged on further, and particularly if it had moved on into an invasion of Japan proper. I'm thankful that the atomic bombs spared my father and countless other Americans and Japanese who might have otherwise been slaughtered. Yes, it's terrible that the bombs were dropped, but really only in the sense that they had to be dropped; let's also remember that Japan entered that war as a gamble for power and conquest, and she lost her gamble. No more platitudinous nonsense, then, please, about the atomic bombs and Harry Truman. His action was right and ended a war that brought us close to the end of civilization.

    By Blogger Randall, at Monday, July 02, 2007  

  • Randall,

    You are right and you are wrong.

    Truman could have shown the Japanese what would happen if they didn't surrender by dropping the A-bombs, not on an innocent population, but on Japanese sites where they could see the wholesale destructive power of the atomic weapons without subjecting human beings to them.

    Warfare is between armed forces, and should never involve those who are not members of those forces.

    That the Japanese were inclined to wreak havoc on non-combatants doesn't mean that the United States should have followed suit.

    Truman was an ass, and took an expedient, albeit we admit, an effective method of war which ended the Pacific strife.

    Nonetheless, his decision was immoral and indefensible when one considers how many other ways he could have made his point.

    Truman wasn't a man of creative imagination; he was a Presidential hack.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 02, 2007  

  • RRR: This is one of the typical bits of fallacious reasoning that people such as you employ when they talk about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Why couldn't Truman have dropped a bomb on an uninhabited area, instead of a city? Why not a demonstration? Well first of all, "rrr", you ignore, once again, that it required TWO atomic bombs to force the Japanese to surrender. So why should a "demonstration bomb" on an island or in the desert have made any difference to the Japanese military and government? You totally miss the point that the Japanese were totally unwilling to surrender even after city upon city had already been destroyed with conventional weapons. What people like you seem to be ignorant of is the historical context we're dealing with here. Japan then was not the Japan we have today. Japan after the war was humiliated, tamed, and forced into democracy. Before the surrender, however, Japan was a nation of vicious and brutal extremism, and in fact the Japanese belief in their own cultural and racial superiority was far more ingrained than in Germany. This horrific certainty in their own divinely-inspired superiority was demonstrated time and time again by the no-surrender, maniacal fighting carried on by Japanese soldiers during the war. Perhaps you've come to believe (as I'm sure many ill-informed people do) that the Japanese were not as bad as all that, that it was all exaggeration. Think again. The numbers of Japanese soldiers who preferred suicide to surrender in each successive campaign in the Pacific are staggering. And the blood-letting only got worse the closer the allies pressed towards the home islands. What this proves is that deeply inculcated in the Japanese mind was a belief that surrender was the worst dishonor that could possibly be brought upon not only the individual but the nation as a whole. I remind you again: one Japanese city after another was obliterated by conventional bombing in the months leading up to August, 1945. Why didn't that terrible destruction make a difference to them? You also make the juvenile mistake of assuming that your peculiar hindsight should have some relevance to decisions made in 1945. But why should it? No one knew anything so portentous, at the time, about the atomic bombs. Perhaps some of the physicists who built it did, but even they at the time demonstrated a certain inability to grasp what these bombs would mean. To them it mainly meant finishing a task they'd been given, and the hope that it would bring an end to the war. Why should it have meant anymore to Truman or any other politician? There's every reason to believe that to most--perhaps all of these men--the bomb was nothing more than another weapon. Yes, a terrible, devastating weapon... but then what of it? The war had already inured us to mass bombings of cities, to terror bombings, to civilian deaths by the thousands. Why not use this new weapon? If it would hasten the end of the war, why not? If it would prevent many more American deaths, why not? Surely this was the mindset of Truman and the men around him. To judge that mindset by what we know today is an exercise in juvenile moralizing, and that's further borne out by your successive statements: "Warfare", you say, "is between armed forces, and should never involve those who are not members of those forces." To which I answer, grow up and face reality. War is what it is, and in that kind of awful war, Total War, there was little sense of what was "civilian" and what wasn't, and the fact is that in all modern, mechanized warfare, we see little such distinction. I wish wars could be fought cleanly and surgically without casualties to innocents as well (and for that matter, to anyone) but let's be grownups here and admit that that is not the world we have. Moreover, to foster upon the Allies a kind of higher morality, as you wish it would have been ("That the Japanese were inclined to wreak havoc on non-combatants doesn't mean that the United States should have followed suit") is an even worse kind of tepid, childish sophistry. To those people then, there was a very real difference between, say, the massacres of Nanking and the fire-bombings of Tokyo. The former was a crime; the latter the punishment of that crime. To see it otherwise is to burden the past with unrealistic and anachronistic fetters. Perhaps, though, it would be easier for you to see this if instead of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, we were talking about the atomic bombing of Berlin. What would you say if it had been the case that the obliteration of Berlin in 1943 or 1944 would have meant the end of WWII then, and the survival of thousands and thousands of human beings who otherwise would have died in the successive fighting in Europe, and especially in the concentration camps? The true shame is that the bomb wasn't ready in time to end the war then... would that it could have been! But then I am capable of admitting that human history is full of these tragic terrors, and it remains for those who start such wars to consider the implications of what they do, and it is not as incumbent upon those who finish such wars to be more thoughtful about it than the aggressors. I see the ironical awfulness of this and admit that's the way life is. You, on the other hand, are clearly of the neat and clean frame of mind who think these things can be wrapped up in platitudes and moral philosophizing... who thinks it cute, apparently, to term the most awful and bloody conflict of our age the "Pacific strife", as though it were a gloved contest. It was not. Truman's decision, in the end, was very defensible (I have defended it, and I believe ably) whereas you have not illustrated in any cogent manner a single alternative way he "could have made his point." But then I also hasten to remind you---Truman wasn't making a "point." He was ending a war. In taking the action he took he killed thousands of Japanese civilians. He undoubtedly saved thousands, perhaps millions more civilians, and saved thousands--perhaps a million--American, British, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand troops. He may have saved my father--and my friend Ian's grandfather (he is half-Japanese and his grandfather was a soldier in the imperial army) and for this I am deeply grateful to the man.

    By Blogger Randall, at Tuesday, July 03, 2007  

  • Randall:

    You are obviously passionate about this matter, which beclouds your thinking perhaps.

    Our loathing of Truman just doesn't end with his bombing of innocent civilians.

    It also is generated by his harboring of Communist party members in his administation and his firing of General MacArthur, who wanted to use an atom bomb against the Chinese and North Koreans.

    Truman was a boob, an immoral boob to boot.

    The Japanese industrial complex was in and around Tokyo. Truman could have wiped it out but wanted Tokyo intact, for various geo-political and economic reasons.

    Instead he opted to annihilate two peripheral cities.

    It would be similar to the terrorists bombing St. Louis and Phoenix here.

    That wouldn't curb the government or the administration. It would be act of utter foolishness.

    That the Japanese capitulated goes against your argument that the Emperor and his military were totally irrational barbarians.

    They saw the power of the A-bomb, and they could have seen that power in another environment, one not so amenable to the human tragedy that Truman wreaked on an innocent population.

    Now let's move on....

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 03, 2007  

  • How convenient of you to want to "move on" when you can't get the best of an argument. Hmm. Well, "RRR", make no blithe assumptions about whose thinking is "clouded" here, sir or sirs (or madam, etc.). I could just as easily say the same about you. I have, in fact, tried to keep you to logic on this issue, but you've repeatedly failed to answer on those grounds. I'll leave off defending Harry Truman. In fact I think he was a good president and don't agree with you in the least about him, but let's leave that aside. To get right at it--you clearly show your ignorance in your statements that "The Japanese industrial complex was in and around Tokyo" and that "Truman could have wiped it out but wanted Tokyo intact..." Go read some history books, folks, and get your facts straight. You seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of Japan during WWII. It's simply flatly WRONG that the industrial complext of Japan was limited to "in and around Tokyo". Cities up and down the island harbored industry, and yes--heavy industry--that was involved in the war effort--as well as military bases. Even more so, every Japanese city was honeycombed with cottage industries that contributed to the war effort. Hiroshima itself was a heavy industrial city AND was the location of one of the major Japanese naval bases as well as a large army base. So your statement is ludicrous. Also, as I believe I had pointed out to you repeatedly: Tokyo WAS almost totally destroyed in conventional bombings. In fact more people died in the Tokyo bombings than died at Hiroshima. So another statement of yours that has no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. We were conventionally bombing what you call "peripheral cities" in both Japan AND Germany as part of the strategy to annihilate the industrial capacity of both nations to wage war. It had no other purpose than that--to make it impossible for these countries to conduct the war and force them into surrender, if possible. You hint at something more sinister and clandestine--which smacks of the kind of conspiracy-theory, illogical, ignore-the-facts crap I expect to hear from people who wear tinfoil on their heads. Finally, your statement that the Japanese surrender negates my arguments is absurd; AGAIN you've failed to admit that it took TWO ATOMIC BOMBS to force the emperor to finally take a hand in ending in the war... and EVEN THEN men in his cabinet and the military resisted and wanted to continue the fight. It was only their deeply inculcated belief in the divinity of the emperor and/or the respect for his institutional presence that gave them pause--and instead they went out and committed ritual suicide in droves. I never said these men were "irrational barbarians" but in fact, yes, they belong to an age where a mindset prevailed in Japan that was so extremist and firmly embedded in the belief of Japanese superiority that clearly you and people like you cannot grasp it and think it, rather, to be some exaggeration of the time and the victors. I hope someday you gain the wisdom to see how wrong you are, because it's by dismissing the truth of the past that we end up allowing the mistakes of the past to happen again. Oh---and as for your statement that Truman destroyed an "innocent population" in the cities of Japan---I ask if you feel the same remorse for the "innocents" in Germany of the same period. Yes, folks---war is horrible and a tragedy. But don't try to paint it in black and whites, no matter what your orientation. You'll look foolish everytime. You obviously have no real understanding of what that war was like (or probably any war) and what terrible choices had to be made. You'd rather fling nonsensical and anachronistic moralizing at it mixed with tepid "theorizing" that hardly deserves the gravity of the word.

    By Blogger Randall, at Friday, July 06, 2007  

  • To second guess this decision is at best woefully inadequate. To debate someones moral stance in war is like asking what is better, killing or killing with purpose. Killing in any case is evil and harsh. If you were not in Trumans position with the information he had, it is rather presumtuous to comment in the negative about his decision. I am not able to judge Truman, even if I disagree with the outcome humanly speaking. However,he did the best in the time for the limitations he had.

    By Blogger Arthur_of_Old, at Monday, August 27, 2007  

  • Randall makes many cogent points. However, in failing to acknowledge the faults of Harry Truman, his passionate appeal, while eloquent, veils an important aspect of the truth. The formula of war being a matter of greys rather than one of blacks and whites applies equally to Truman himself, even if many of his detractors on this forum used arguments appealing to emotion rather than logic.

    The atomic bomb was known to be a terrible weapon that would result in catastrophic, instantaneous destruction--Truman himself boasted of harnessing the energy of a man made sun to obliterate the enemy in war. Fire-bombing is not as horrific to human taste as the thought of being melted alive or being left a maimed, cancerous heap in a fraction of a second--the heat from the bombs was so intense that people near the epicenters simply turned immediately to ash. Other maimed and injured people screamed for water and tried to drink the ooze from their own wounds to satiate their thirst. Later, radioactive rain poured down on them which they guzzled down, resulting in horrific and drawn-out demises soon down the road. The destruction was simply astounding, and set a dangerous precedent for the future. And speaking of precedents, many historians believe that Truman dropped the bomb not so much to end the war early, but to show Stalinist Russia how strong the US was. By August 1945, Japan was on its last legs, and much of the delay after Hiroshima involved the emperor worrying he might be forced to abdicate if he surrendered--this shows that the inevitability of defeat was already understood where it counted, and all that was left was the need to work out the details.

    What Truman did is defensible from a Machiavellian perspective, but terrible enough in its implications that one should take pause before commending it with anything approaching enthusiasm. Who is to say the nature of honor or mercy, in war or peace?

    By Blogger David, at Wednesday, January 30, 2008  

  • I specifically found this page after being very interested in the search connecting UFOs with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. For I am aware from others testimony that UFOs have been said to be most interested in the nuclear plants and bases, and to have even disengaged nuclear weapons!

    I am utterly disgusted with the poster here who justifies the incomprehensible evil of dropping a nuclear bomb on human beings. it beggars belief and is not just a war crime but a crime against nature!

    NOTHING justifies that. And if his aregument was it was to end 'evil war', i would say PLEASE don't be so naive. Go read 'War is a racket'--Do you really believe these power mongers and their puppets CARE about people? Yes they may do about thier own mean arses, and those that help keep their power but certainly NOT about human life in general, and animal and the natural world. No!

    They were really TESTING their 'baby', and sending a message to the WORLD. See the image of a cowboy with a hat? got it!!!

    Before that person justifuies such an unimaginable horror as what happened to the life living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pesase EXPERIENCE it, or have loved ones who did before you open your mouth or put fingers to keys!

    By Blogger muzuzuzus, at Wednesday, November 11, 2009  

  • It's amazing that in today's world you still have people that defend the actions of Truman. These are the same Republicans that think Bush and his criminal cabinet were justified in Iraq, support anti abortion laws, fight to keep marijuana illegal and have this wacky American Christian bogus belief that they are a kind and gentle nation. They are a nation of ignorant debt slaves.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, May 03, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home