UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Manipulating the Crashed UFO Scene by Nick Redfern

crashed.jpg

Have UFOs crashed to earth?

Was Roswell "real"?

Have alien bodies been retrieved and autopsied?

Many people certainly believe so. Even I ("The Scourge Of Roswell") used to believe so.

And there's something else, too; something surprising: key elements of the official world want you to believe that UFOs have crashed. They're pleased you believe. They rub their hands together in secret glee as they congratulate themselves on a job well-done.

Yes: it's truly ironic that those same key elements may well be up to their collective necks in crashed UFO tales - but there's a possibility that none of them may have any basis in literal UFO reality whatsoever.

Instead, there is good evidence that the collective UFO research community may have been the unwitting victim of a huge con-trick; one designed to (a) hide classified military ops under a crashed UFO banner; and (b) control and manipulate a group of people (namely us) that the official world perceives as being (at times, at least) troublesome and a potential threat to national security.

So, with that said, where do we begin? Where else: the early years of the UFO, the 1940s.

Psychological Saucers

It’s worth noting (mainly because few have bothered to note it, or to understand and appreciate the significance of the matter) that one of the “Recommendations” of a lengthy Technical Report prepared by the Air Force’s flying saucer study, Project Grudge, way back in August 1949, states: “That Psychological Warfare Division and other governmental agencies interested in psychological warfare be informed of the results of this study.”

The Department of Defense’s official definition of psychological warfare is: “The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.”

As the above Grudge revelations show, way back when in the formative years of Ufology, certain players were looking to understand how the subject could be used psychologically.

Saucers and the CIA

A 1952 document from then-CIA director Walter B. Smith to the Director of the Psychological Strategy Board, titled “Flying Saucers,” states:

“I am today transmitting to the National Security Council a proposal in which it is concluded that the problems connected with unidentified flying objects appear to have implications for psychological warfare as well as for intelligence and operations. I suggest that we discuss at an early board meeting the possible offensive or defensive utilization of these phenomena for psychological warfare purposes.”

According to Gerald Haines, historian for the National Security Agency and the CIA, in the early 1950s, “The CIA…searched the Soviet press for UFO reports, but found none, causing the group to conclude that the absence of reports had to have been the result of deliberate Soviet Government policy. The group also envisioned the USSR’s possible use of UFOs as a psychological warfare tool. [My italics.] In addition, they worried that, if the US air warning system should be deliberately overloaded by UFO sightings, the Soviets might gain a surprise advantage in any nuclear attack. Because of the tense Cold War situation and increased Soviet capabilities, the CIA Study Group saw serious national security concerns in the flying saucer situation. The group believed that the Soviets could use UFO reports to touch off mass hysteria and panic in the United States. The group also believed that the Soviets might use UFO sightings to overload the US air warning system so that it could not distinguish real targets from phantom UFOs.”

Significantly, the CIA Study Group “did find that continued emphasis on UFO reporting might threaten ‘the orderly functioning’ of the government by clogging the channels of communication with irrelevant reports and by inducing ‘hysterical mass behavior’ harmful to constituted authority. The panel also worried that potential enemies contemplating an attack on the United States might exploit the UFO phenomena and use them to disrupt US air defenses.”

This, in essence, is the CIA’s official stance with respect to the UFO puzzle. The CIA was most concerned about the way in which the Soviets might exploit the UFO subject as a tool of psychological warfare and spread bogus UFO accounts to clog intelligence channels.

In other words, it was not UFOs per se that particularly interested or alarmed the CIA, but the way in which the subject itself could be manipulated for other, more novel purposes.

As we shall now see, it was during these formative years that the American intelligence community began to realize how it, too might make use of the crashed UFO mystery to further muddy the waters concerning the incidents in New Mexico in 1947.

And so it was that, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, several crashed UFO tales surfaced – all of which bore the hallmarks of official involvement, both in their creation and dissemination.

The Aztec Affair

newton.jpg

Aztec player, the notorious Silas Newton

Next to the so-called Roswell Incident of July 1947, certainly the most talked-about “UFO crash” of all is that which is alleged to have occurred in the vicinity of Aztec, New Mexico, in 1948.

According to information related to the author Frank Scully in the late 1940s, and subsequently published in his best-selling 1950 book, Behind the Flying Saucers, the wreckage of four alien spacecraft, and no fewer than 34 alien bodies, had been recovered by American authorities as a result of a number of separate incidents in 1947 and 1948, and were being studied under cover of the utmost secrecy at defense establishments in the United States.

Scully was willing to admit that the bulk of his information had come from two primary sources: Silas Mason Newton, who was described in a 1941 FBI report as a ‘wholly unethical businessman,’ and one ‘Dr. Gee’, the name given to protect eight scientists, all of whom had supposedly divulged various details of the crashes to Newton and Scully. According to Scully’s sources one such UFO was found in Hart Canyon, near the town of Aztec, in March 1948.

After the Aztec saucer had crashed, said Scully, it was found essentially intact by elements of the military that gained access to the object via a fractured porthole. Inside they found the bodies of no fewer than sixteen small, human-like creatures, all slightly charred and undoubtedly dead. The UFO was then dismantled and the bodies of the crew were transferred to Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio for study.

At the time of its release, Scully’s book caused a major sensation. In both 1952 and 1953, however, J. P. Cahn, a reporter who had previously worked for the San Francisco Chronicle, authored two detailed exposes, which cast serious doubt on the claims of Newton and ‘Dr. Gee’ – identified not as ‘eight scientists’ but as one Leo Gebauer, who had a background as equally dubious as that of Newton.

Yet, as the years have shown, the Aztec crashed UFO incident refuses to roll over and die – indeed it has now spawned a whole industry.

Even today, the Aztec story continues to perplex and intrigue: a fascinating piece of documentary evidence relative to the Aztec case surfaced in the late 1990s, thanks to the late investigative author Karl Pflock – and it is one that may ultimately shed more light on the psychological warfare angle of the crashed UFO mystery.

“In 1998, under curious circumstances,” stated Pflock, “I was made privy to a fascinating document about one of the most controversial cases of the Golden Age of Flying Saucers, the so-called Aztec crash of 1948. I had little more than passing interest in the case until 1998, when a source, who insists on complete anonymity, showed me a handwritten testament, set down by the key player in this amazing, often amusing, truth-is-stranger-than-fiction episode.

“[I]t seems that what I was shown was…something penned by sly old Silas Newton, but what can we say about the veracity of its content? After the Denver Post revealed he was Scientist X, Newton received two visitors at his Newton Oil Company office in Denver. These men claimed to be with a highly secret U.S. Government entity, which they refused to name. Were they Air Force OSI agents, who Newton hyped into something more mysterious? Newton writes, ‘They grilled me, tried to poke holes in my story. Had no trouble doing it and laughed in my face about the scientific mistakes I made. They never said so, but I could tell they were trying to find out if I really knew anything about flying saucers that had landed. Did not take those fellows long to decide I did not. But I sure knew they did.’”

Pflock expands further and the tale becomes decidedly intriguing:

“Newton’s visitors told him they knew he was pulling a scam and then gave him what may have been the surprise of his life. ‘Those fellows said they wanted me to keep it up, keep telling the flying saucer story and that they and the people they worked for would look out for me and for Leo. I could just go on doing what I always did and not worry about it.’”

Pflock asks:

“Did the U.S. Government or someone associated with it use Newton to discredit the idea of crashed flying saucers so a real captured saucer or saucers could be more easily kept under wraps? Was this actually nothing to do with real saucers but instead some sort of psychological warfare operation?” [My italics.]

Klondike and the Crown

And then there is Operation Klondike. Following the collapse of Nazi Germany, several of Hungary’s national treasures, including the Crown of St. Stephen, were handed over to the United States military for safekeeping. They were duly delivered, in the early 1950s, to Fort Knox in an elaborate operation code-named Klondike. The treasure was eventually returned to Hungary in 1978.

This would be just another story of political intrigue were it not for one strange fact: according to a memorandum in the State Department, the soldiers designated to guard the treasure were told that the boxes contained “the wings and engine of a flying saucer.”

This type of misinformation may well have been common. “Is it effective?” asked researcher William Moore. “Certainly in the Klondike situation it was, because unsubstantiated stories about parts of a flying saucer being stored at Fort Knox continue to be part of the UFO crash/retrieval rumor mill to this very day. How many other similar rumors have a similar origin is anybody's guess.”

The Spitzbergen Saucer That Wasn't

For many years, tales have circulated to the effect that in the early 1950’s a UFO crashed on the island of Spitzbergen, Norway, and, under circumstances similar to those that allegedly occurred at both Aztec and Roswell, was recovered along with its deceased alien crew.

On March 22, 1968, the State Department forwarded to a host of official bodies within the American intelligence community (including the CIA, the National Security Agency and Army Intelligence) a translation of a March 12, 1968 news article titled “Flying Saucers? They’re A Myth!” that had been written by Viillen Lyustiberg, science editor of the Novosti Press Agency in Russia and that included a small mention of the Spitzbergen allegations.

The relevant section of the article stated: “An abandoned silvery disc was found in the deep rock coal seams in Norwegian coal mines on Spitzbergen. It was pierced and marked by micrometeor impacts and bore all traces of having performed a long space voyage. It was sent for analysis to the Pentagon and disappeared there.”

The CIA, Army, State Department and NSA have all declassified their files pertaining to their apparent interest in Soviet news articles on UFOs in general and the Spitzbergen event in particular.

However, the NSA’s copy of the document differs significantly from those of its allied agencies. On the NSA’s copy, someone had circled the specific section of the article that referred to the Spitzbergen crash with the word “PLANT.”

This, again, would seem to suggest that this was a faked crashed UFO story, purposefully planted by persons currently unknown but known to the all-powerful National Security Agency.

Monkeys in the Desert?

blast.jpg

The 10th of 11 atomic-tests that comprised Operation Upshot-Knothole

And, finally, there is Kingman.

For years, interesting stories and accounts have circulated concerning the crash of a UFO at Kingman, Arizona in 1953 - and at the height of Operation Upshot-Knothole: a series of eleven nuclear test shots conducted over the border at the Nevada Test Site.

Perhaps a UFO really did crash at Kingman; however, I have uncovered files showing that in the same precise time-frame (and specifically as part of the Upshot-Knothole tests), the military was secretly test-flying drone aircraft in the area with monkeys on-board.

Might such a drone have crashed? Either by accident or design, was a crashed UFO story created to hide the security aspects of the affair?

While the image of an unmanned drone aircraft packed with a “crew” of monkeys flying across – and ultimately crashing in – the deserts of the southwest might sound laughable and bizarre in the extreme, official papers establishing that such tests were indeed undertaken have surfaced.

A document titled Early Cloud Penetration, dated January 27, 1956, and prepared by the Air Research and Development Command at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, states in part:

“In the event of nuclear warfare the AF is confronted with two special problems. First is the hazard to flight crews who may be forced to fly through an atomic cloud. Second is the hazard to ground crews who maintain the aircraft after it has flown through the cloud…In the 1953 Upshot-Knothole tests, monkeys were used so that experiments could be conducted on larger animals nearer the size of man. QF-80 drone aircraft were used, their speed more nearly approximating that of current operational aircraft.”

And that's just the 1940s and 1950s.

In the near future, I will do a follow-up post to this one that offers similar revelations pertaining to later, alleged UFO crashes.

You may disagree with me, and that is of course your right to do so. However, it seems to me that - for years - the crashed UFO community has been well and truly played, manipulated, and even controlled.

The trick to overcoming this is to throw out your belief systems and start fresh, with no preconceived ideas about crashed UFOs, and no emotion-driven need to believe in wrecked saucers, dead aliens, underground cryogenic chambers filled with ET body-parts, and all the rest.

Do that, be totally unbiased, and you may find some surprising facts about the origins of certain crashed UFO events.

Whether this will please you, dismay you, or cause you to throw out all your files and walk away from the subject remains to be seen, of course...

Sources:

Project Grudge Technical Report No. 102-AC 49/15-100, Lt. H.W. Smith and Mr. G.W. Towles, Air Materiel Command, 1949.

JCS Pub 1, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

CIA’s Role in the Study of UFOs 1947-90, Gerald K. Haines, Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, Central Intelligence Agency.

The Day After Aztec, Karl Pflock, self-published.

Behind the Flying Saucers, Frank Scully, Henry Holt Publishers, 1950.

UFO Crash at Aztec, William Steinman & Wendelle Stevens, UFO Photo Archives, 1987.

Far Out, No. 1, 1992.

Flying Saucers? They’re a Myth! Viillen Lyustiberg.

Air Research and Development Command, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, Early Cloud Penetration, 27 January 1956 .

28 Comments:

  • You have confined yourself to the US. I often wonder why crashed UFOs and abductions seem to be almost entirely the prerogative of one country - the USA. OK so we do occasionally hear of crashes elsewhere, but why no psychological warfare, say, from the UK, France, NATO, Japan etc? Are there any documents or statements from UK defense or intelligence personnel which would suggest something similar was going on here in Britain? After all, we did and do have considerable contact with the US over intelligence matters. Yet this psychological warfare program was, apparently, entirely confined to the US. But then to suggest other countries were involved might negate your thesis?

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, June 02, 2009  

  • Addendum:
    True, the Spitzbergen crash was outside the US, but I still don't see why the US authorities (NSA, CIA etc) would seize on that case 16 years later (!) as a possible psycho warfare idea. A 'plant'? By whom?

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, June 02, 2009  

  • CDA:

    I have indeed primarily (Spitzbergen aside, as you note) confined myself to the US.

    However, that was primarily because it is via US sources that the most significant data on this matter can be found - thus far, at least.

    I don't agree that this can be classed as my thesis, per se, however.

    For example, the "Spitzbergen-Plant" document can be downloaded at the NSA's website - by anyone.

    And writing the word "plant" (to me, at least) does not really leave the meaning open to interpretation. It seems pretty clear-cut: it was a planted story, aspects of which were known to someone in NSA.

    The Crown of St. Stephen/Fort Knox/"flying saucer" documents are at the National Archives for anyone to see.

    And the documents concerning the flights of drone aircraft with monkeys on-board (at the time of the Kingman, Arizona crash) are available at the National Archives, too.

    And Karl Pflock was the firsthand source for the Aztec story.

    So, it's not my thesis, as such. Rather, anyone could use this data and come to a similar conclusion because it's all widely available.

    Re Spitzbergen: I'm not saying they seized on it 16 years later to use it as a plant.

    Rather, I'm saying that when this story about Spitzbergen surfaced in the 60s in the Russian press, someone in NSA already knew enough of this saga to label it as as "plant."

    Maybe the person/persons had insider knowledge of how the original 1952 Spitzbergen story had been planted, and then circled the relevant piece in the 1960s file.

    Why? We may never know. But it's at the NSA website for all to see.

    As for the UK, although the following does not relate strictly to crashed UFOs, it does relate to UFOs and psychological warfare.

    The source of the data was The Independent newspaper in 2001:

    According to testimony from Richard Tomlinson, a former agent with Britain’s MI6 (the British equivalent of the CIA): "[D]uring the run-up to the 1992 [United Nations] Secretary General elections, [MI6] mounted a smear operation against the Egyptian candidate, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was regarded as dangerously Francophile by the CIA. The CIA are constitutionally prevented from manipulating the press so they asked MI6 to help. Using their contacts in the British and American media, [MI6] planted a series of stories to portray Boutros-Ghali as unbalanced, claiming that he was a believer in the existence of UFOs and extra-terrestrial life. The operation was eventually unsuccessful, however, and Boutros-Ghali was elected."

    Also: you may be interested to know that a notable story will be surfacing soon concerning what may be a psychological warfare angle connected to the Rendlesham Forest case, and which revolves around an experiment to try and harness ball-lightning as a weapon - and to determine the psychological effects on military personnnel, if such phenomena was encountered on the battlefield.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, June 02, 2009  

  • Nick,
    As you already are aware, I think the historical context of Roswell provides compelling circumstantial evidence that it was a counter-intelligence operation based on the events leading up to and during 1947, and your post only further underscores, by further extension, this very real and more probable possibility. As I mentioned, the former KGB files would probably be a gold mine. While most thought the hieroglyphic
    writing found at Kecksburg, Rendlesham, Roswell and Sorroco were alien, I always considered them to be intentional red herrings when you consider that each type of craft was quite distinct, which struck me as more representative of the nature of experimental craft from bells to tripods, triangles what have you..my sense of this is the hieroglyphics were intentional straw dogs..a simple, very old, and
    oft used ruse by military intelligence to mislead, misinform and perpetuate an extremely useful meme.
    I, like yourself don't believe that this infers that there is not something else occurring, inasmuch as there is overwhelming evidence, there is. However, this wild goose chase after crashed saucers is only detracting from a more profound phenomenon occurring over our heads as I write this.
    Great Post.

    Best Wishes
    Bruce

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, June 02, 2009  

  • Bruce

    Many thanks for the comment.

    Re your statement that: "...this wild goose chase after crashed saucers is only detracting from a more profound phenomenon," I fully agree.

    My personal view is that the "crashed UFO" aspect of Ufology serves several purposes - a couple of which I spelled out in my blog-post.

    But, there's another - somewhat subtle - purpose too.

    All the talk of crashed UFOs, nuts-and-bolts spacecraft, dead aliens, alien-autopsies etc creates a view of an alien intelligence that, yes, is far in advance of us; but - when all is said and done - they aren't too different to us.

    The image provoked by stories of crashed UFOs is that they have a science, a technology, metal-ships, factories where the ships are built etc etc.

    My own view is that the truth is far stranger.

    It's clear to me that there is indeed some intelligence among us, and I would indeed describe it as alien - but in the sense that it is truly weird and to a high degree, beyond our understanding.

    But, whether it's literally extraterrestrial, I don't know.

    I know the following is not a particularly new theory (Vallee, Keel have of course covered it before in varying degrees).

    But, it seems to me we have a phenomenon amongst us that has been here for a very long time.

    It seems to use our archetypes, to manifest in different ways and forms, according to the cultural beliefs and societies of the time, and its chief role seems to be to initiate change.

    By change, I mean radical, deep change at a profoundly personal level in human beings.

    Stan Friedman has said re the official world and UFOs that governments don't want to see us owe our allegiance to the planet instead of to individual governments.

    I agree with Stan to a degree on this, but disagree majorly on one key point.

    I don't believe the unidentified presence among us wants us to owe allegiance to our planet instead of individual governments.

    Rather, I believe that the presence wants us to owe allegiance to ourselves - at a truly, and radically, transformed level.

    Governments may indeed not want us to owe allegiance to the planet instead of to them. But, more than that, they don't want to see a radical overhaul of society, where a true state of anarchy exists (but in the sense of what anarchy is meant to mean - not the idea of full-scale disorder, as it's often interpreted).

    Whether it's (A) Joseph Smith, angelic figures, and golden plates; (B) George Van Tassel communing with long-haired aliens in the desert; (C) Moses and the Ten Commandments; (D) Strieber and his black-eyed little men - they are all one and the same.

    Yes, the image changes, the modus operandi changes to a degree; but at the end of the day, it's all about a higher force manifesting in certain ways to create change.

    God may not exist, angels may not exist, and ET may not exist. But something does - and it uses these motifs and beliefs of ours to allow its actions to work.

    And, I think, at an official level there are people who know this. They know that the UFO puzzle is not as simple as alien scientists visiting us and crashing - but they are fine with us chasing our tails in search of data that supports this idea; because it keeps us away from a far stranger truth.

    Those on the inside who know the truth (or, perhaps more likely, suspect this is the truth) fear whatever lies at the heart of the UFO puzzle - not because it is necessarily evil or hostile - but simply because (if we all, individually, allow it to happen) it can radically transform society in ways that our leaders see as a terrible thing.

    Personally, I see radical change in society as a very positive thing (after all, we have, frankly, done a piss-poor job of things so far as a civilization).

    But those who maintain the status quo most assuredly don't.

    And keeping whole swathes of the UFO research community locked in a "nuts and bolts alien craft" mentality works very well as a diversionary tactic.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Nick...

    While you disavow God, your "presence" sure seems like something that could be God and acts like God, as portrayed in various religions.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Rich:

    It could indeed. However, my argument would be if it mimics space-brothers, mimics black-eyed Grays, mimics goblins, and mimics a host of other Fortean phenomena (as I believe it does), then why should the God image not also be a mimic?

    To me, it seems more plausible that we have a phenomenon that uses numerous motifs to achieve its aims.

    And, as millions believe in God, that would be a great form to manifest as too.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Not to get to far away from the UFO thing, Nick, with the God thing, just let me say that you make a valid point or maybe several valid points.

    The "presence" may be playing games but I've always felt that God was the ultimate game-player, a kind of omnipotent sociopath.

    And if your "presence" can do all the things you suggest, then doesn't that allow us to use the epithet "God" to identify them?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Rich:

    Yeah, I would say that does allow us to use the God term.

    However, to what extent that might have anything to do with a literal Heaven, Hell, an afterlife and the image of God that most people have, is a different matter!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Nick...

    You are right, of course.

    When I was in Seminary, even the Jesuits didn't profess the literal Heaven, Hell concepts.

    (Jesuit theology allows for a much more bizarre view than Roman Catholicism for the masses indicates.)

    When we re-activate our blog, The God Game, I'll let you know, just in case you (and a few others) might like to pursue The Shadow World of God and/or The Presence.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Woah woah woah wtf has this thread turned into, and by none other than the author himself! Sure, these are interesting speculations, but there's absolutely nothing to scientifically back up any of these claims! We've gone from disseminating crashes as diversions of what's really going on (which seems highly plausible, especially with the available body of evidence) to suggesting that ET, angels, religion as a whole, and many other phenomenon are all tied together in one almost omnipotent force! Can we use a little Ockham's Razor here and go for the simplest solution until shown otherwise, please? Please, let's keep this blog as a rational discussion of available evidence and as scientific and non-speculative as possible, that's exactly why I started reading it and coming here!

    By Blogger armakan01, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Yes, Armakan01, we did get diverted, from crashed UFOs to things at the edge of reality.

    But some seem to think it's all intertwined.

    You don't, apparently.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Actually, I do think it's all intertwined, and I have my own views that are extremely similar to those said above. However, I think for UFO research to be taken seriously, we must keep these ideas to ourselves until there is at least some form of proof behind them. You don't see scientists having wild assumptions about what will come from the LHC (well, except for the fringe idiots that think a black hole will envelope the Earth). I think we should follow their lead and stay professional.

    By Blogger armakan01, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Armakan01...

    I think the day that anything about UFOs can be considered professional has long passed...if it was ever so.

    But I agree that some peripheral matters should be subliminal, even if just to keep the UFO waters less muddy than they already are.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • Nick,
    I absolutely agree that embedding this phenomenon in an strictly empirical framework has buried it in the political machinations of those who would exploit it for the same reason.

    We may be witnessing what Godel arranged as a paper theorem, that logic has unraveled itself when faced with the fact that uncertainty rather than perfection is the driver of new horizons.

    It always amazed me that we thought the world could be accurately described with only twenty seven letters of the alphabet. The self referential terms of our engagement with the world has been reoriented, and I think that all of us are poised at the frontier of a new world as radically different in concept as surely as Columbus faced when he landed in South America instead of China, while most felt he had long since fell off the edge of a flat world.

    No cartography, geology or history precedes this outside of what we have defined ourselves to be as sort of a place holder, a post it note to return later to find what or whom that is when we look in the mirror.

    Maybe time is counted and we are positioned in a situation where delaying this examination any longer will consign us to oblivion or worse, a lingering misery.

    God the Universe, Nature whatever word we use in this limited vocabulary is not an authoritarian monarch and we have instead of reward or punishment, we have the gift of opportunity to transform reality as we conceive of it, and all one can do is hope that this will effect our own behavior for the betterment of all..

    Best Wishes
    Bruce

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, June 03, 2009  

  • @RRRGroup: If we're far beyond this hypothetical point of UFO research being professional, or even if it never was, what is the point of even having this blog? Assume one of your group or bloggers/blog views happens to research upon some really good telling evidence. What would be the point of even discussing it, or talking about it if this hasn't been taken seriously? I'm reminded of artifacts like in Bob White's story. The artifact matches characteristics that so far have been testable to prove it is either an extremely exotic, top secret project, or ET. But even after careful analysis, they haven't been given straight answers on the tests they requested, or even the correct tests needed to actually make some sort of determination about the object's origin. I'm getting off track here though...what I'm trying to get at is that to further get the UFO subject taken seriously, we must approach it entirely as skeptical scientists, otherwise whatever we determine might as well be thrown out the window, because no one will listen.

    By Blogger armakan01, at Thursday, June 04, 2009  

  • Nick,

    Can you more precisely cite the Spitzbergen-Plant document you mention (perhaps with a link)? I looked at the NSA site (I think) but I am not sure which of the many documents there you are citing.

    Thanks,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Sunday, June 07, 2009  

  • Lance

    Here's the link at the NSA website.

    http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/dos_airgram_flying_saucers_myth.pdf

    As you'll see, it's a translation of a Russian article.

    I was able to get the same document from Army, State Dept, CIA and others, and the NSA copy is the only one with the word "plant" circled.

    That would seem to suggest that wording was added at NSA.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, June 08, 2009  

  • Thank you. That is quite interesting. That it means what you imply is not clear but it it is not unreasonable to assume that it might (as hard as it is for a skeptic to say that!).

    Now, I have to say that that the whole framework of your article doesn't hold together for me. You relate some interesting stuff but it is literally a list of unrelated items. Are we to imagine the connections?

    I suppose in this field you can rest easy that many folks will make up their own structure to support these scattered ideas.

    The Newton section is certainly a non-sequitur. Can it really be such a surprise to anyone when Silas Newton decides to spin yet another tall tale? I cant believe you think this mean anything at all. One thing Roswell and crashed saucers have taught all of us is that you cannot underestimate the will of man to make up stuff for fun. Pflock certainly learned this the hard way.

    I have to say that the stuff about the monkeys is intriguing. Do you have any documents that refer to a crash of one of these test drones or are you hypothesizing only?

    Thanks,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, June 08, 2009  

  • Lance:

    You wrote:

    "You relate some interesting stuff but it is literally a list of unrelated items. Are we to imagine the connections?"

    Well, I would disagree. They are only unrelated in the sense that (so far) we don't have access to any hypothetical files/orders initiating the creation of these bogus crashed UFO tales.

    If we did (and if such exists), then we might well see some evidence of a connection, as well as the bigger picture of what went on behind the scenes that led to their creation and circulation.

    You wrote:

    "The Newton section is certainly a non-sequitur. Can it really be such a surprise to anyone when Silas Newton decides to spin yet another tall tale?"

    We can never rule out a hoax from Newton. But there are several things to be aware of.

    1. Newton actually never spun the story. The story never surfaced during his lifetime (he died in the early 70s). Indeed, the only reason it did surface was because Karl Pflock was given access to certain papers of Newton in 1999.

    In other words, if the story was a creation of Newton, then he totally failed to spread it around, talk about it, publish it, or reveal it to the UFO community - which (to me) sounds odd if this was all just a mere yarn.

    2. I have to say that Newton's comments about the two men wanting him to keep telling the Aztec story smacks of a disinformation op - and possibly a cover to add confusion to the crashed UFO issue.

    You say:

    "I have to say that the stuff about the monkeys is intriguing. Do you have any documents that refer to a crash of one of these test drones or are you hypothesizing only?"

    So far, here's where things are at:
    the files on these monkey experiments were found by me in a very obscure Kirtland Air Force Base archived file of the late 1950s.

    The file number in question was actually provided to me by a person with an interest in the info presented in my "Body Snatchers," and that allowed me to to trace the file.

    So, that lead turned out to be real and profitable.

    The same source claims one (and only one) such drone did crash. I am actively looking and liaising with the archives to try and find this file.

    Of course, some may say that such files don't exist. However, I would say that as the source "delivered the goods" (or led me to them) to demontsrate that monkeys were indeed used in drones in this time and location, I do think we may be on to something, and that something will ultimately surface re such an accident.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, June 10, 2009  

  • It seems that as the ones who actually did the 'work' on these alleged UFO's are passing away that there is an actual INCREASE in mis-information specialists and nay- sayers as regards the entire UFO phenom! Besides this blog, which DOES have some significantly 'plausible' suggestions as to what is/has really been occurring, plausible does not mean TRUE. Plausibility is what throws people of interest OFF THE SCENT. There is yet another individual being thrown into the mix of nay-sayers. He's been given the OK as a person of intelligence and acceptance (as far as believability etc.). He alleges that he NEVER saw ANYTHING of an unidentifiable nature, either Aliens or Craft. Yet he was a simple 'Gate Guard' at the area called 51. His NEED TO KNOW status would not have gotten him any INFORMATION as to what he was 'allowing' into the gate or etc. He was, allegedly, used as security in the recovery effort of a few downed conventional, yet 'top secret', craft but that was his M.O. and still has nothing to do with his need to know anything about unconventional or E.T. issues so his entire statement is MOOT when you understand how things work. But here it is as reported in the news paper out of Seattle: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011461015_area51vets28m.html

    By Blogger Sheephoganess, at Friday, April 09, 2010  

  • Sheep:

    But what's more likely: (A) aliens from across the galaxy keep coming here and crashing and the government successfully manages to hide every single scrap of hard evidence on every occasion, or (B) that the stories are government disinformation?

    I'd say "B". And one of the reasons I say "B" is because no matter how powerful a government agency (or agencies) may be, they screw up.

    So, that being the case, why is it that no hard evidence (a body, an undeniable piece of wreackage, an undeniable photo or official document) concerning a crash has ever happened? EVER.

    It's like when the Space Shuttle exploded over Texas: people were finding debris for years.

    I very well remember the Lockerbie, Scotland 747 crash of 1988, as I was still living back in Britain then. People were finding wreckage for years there too.

    But, with crashed UFOs, it's ALWAYS the same: the government gets all the wreckage, all the bodies etc etc.

    And even in the few cases where someone does claim recovery of some artifact, it's never ever conclusive, or it "got lost in a house move" etc etc.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, April 09, 2010  

  • Actually, it would seem as if you are correct and B) would be the appropriate answer, however, there are actually far to many 'coincidences' which have occurred for it to be a Government Disinformation scheme. (at least in it's entirety) At least as far as I feel. For one thing there are a good handful of the alleged 'disclosed' documents of a one time 'TOP SECRET' nature which are nothing more than very few lines of innocuous text and about 20 or more additional lines which have been 'destroyed' and made illegible by black magic marker? This is, once again, the Plausibility thing at work. In the eyes of the inquiring public these documents could say absolutely ANYTHING (anything from ET / UFO presence to schemes to maim and kill etc.) or it could actually say NOTHING AT ALL under all those marker lines!! Let's give em' THIS instead of anything useful. This in itself could be some sort of ongoing test of public response.

    Than there is this. My husband / significant others father was Bill Uhouse. All one needs to do is a web search for that name and you will see a good deal of information, to include a short video he made in the 90's. He has been called a liar and a disinformation distributor. He passed away last May 29, 2009 so there is no way to verify anything any longer. All I can assert to you is that Will, my husband, is his father's only blood son. Will had to go through the Freedom Of Information Act to get anything in writing as to his father's information. What we received from the Military (USMC) was about 5 pages, most of which was "REDACTED FOR PERSONAL PRIVACY" The gentleman is DECEASED so what the heck do you mean 'personal privacy'? Anything that would verify his dates of service his vocation and areas where he lived etc. has ALL been wiped out. Pretty much his entire life / work. Will already knows a good deal of this information so if it's been redacted for him than it's more than likely gone PERIOD. Seems to be a lot of trouble for a LIAR and DISINFORMATION distributor, wouldn't you think?

    By Blogger Sheephoganess, at Friday, April 09, 2010  

  • Sheep:

    No, I actually don't think that a lot of the people telling these stories are liars at all.

    The way in which official disinformation works best is when the people telling the crashed UFO stories (like Bill) believe them.

    Do I think he was a liar and a knowing spreader of disinformation? No. But my point is that people like Bill may have been lied TO, by THEIR superiors, who then encourage them to tell what they have been told.

    It's like with Bob Lazar. A lot of people completely write him off about seeing alien craft at S-4, Nevada.

    I don't. I think Lazar was exposed to something that someone in Govt wanted him to see, knowing he would probably talk about it, and which would reinforce the ET angle.

    For example, Lazar was reportedly hired to work on back-engineering alien craft.

    Fair enough. But if he was working just on the technology, why is it that he was shown pages and pages of documentation that told the story of the aliens' mission and presence on earth.

    But, if Lazar is just working on technology, why share with him all the classified info on the history of the aliens.

    To me, the answer is simple: the people whos showed him the files were deliberately trying to convince him the craft he was seeing were alien. But, they might have been military craft, and so the "ET files" were created to further instil in his mind that he was seeing something from outer-space.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, April 11, 2010  

  • In response to:

    "The way in which official disinformation works best is when the people telling the crashed UFO stories (like Bill) believe them"

    This is also true for nay-sayers. In some cases the burden lies in creating a believable rebuttal for any who may be reading what is said. (whether or not the 'debunk-er' believes themselves) No offense, but you're rebuttal is rather canned as you are not the first to use it.

    There's also the FACT that Bill spoke very low key and NEVER profited in any way by what he had to say, EVER. Unlike yourself and even Lazar who eventually profited from the publicity he'd received from his stories.

    People often make the mistake of grouping B.Uhouse with Bob Lazar when they did not even know each other. Bill talked FIRST, long before Lazar, on any of these matters and Lazar simply repeated and 'embellished' what Bill had said.

    You said:

    "For example, Lazar was reportedly hired to work on back-engineering alien craft"

    This is a very likely untruth according to what was listed in the FTS Directory.(Federal Telephone System directory - which lists ALL Federal Telephone and Employee numbers which are under constant Government scrutiny for content etc.) Will (my husband and Bill's son) worked at the test site in the 70's with a 'Q' clearance or a 'Clean' clearance. To the general public this is considered a 'Secret' clearance. For the RECORD, there is NO SUCH CLEARANCE AS TOP SECRET. There is only SECRET with different CATEGORIES of clearance so anyone who has EVER used the terms TOP SECRET etc. are not telling the truth. Lazar was listed in the directory as an "Instrumentation Calibration Technician" under REECO management. REECO was the prime contractor back then like Becktel is now.

    I don't believe a word Lazar said and if anyone was/is actually SPREADING (or was programmed or set up to spread) disinformation it would be HIM since he actually EMBELLISHED what Bill had already said. This is a good sign that what he 'added' was actually disinformation. As far as I understand it most everyone who worked on this project(s) were given many psychological and other 'tests' before being brought into the project(s). MOST of those tested did not make the cut. (at least this was so for those FEW who spoke to the 'alleged' Alien- J-Rod)

    Everyone who worked on anything of this nature did so in a 'clean suit'. They were completely covered, head to toe, so unless you donned your clean suit in the same room with your 'work mates' you would not even necessarily know who you were working with.

    As to the 'pages and pages on the Alien agenda' which Lazar allegedly read, he may have read such pages and they may have been FAKE but that really has nothing to do with Bill who was one of the FIRST to speak out and who said NOTHING about reading any such books(papers). This is purely a Lazar thing and another reason why he IS a likely candidate to have been MADE TO BELIEVE certain lies and than to spread them far and wide. Once again, Bill spoke VERY LOW KEY while Lazar practically BEGGED for ATTENTION.

    Bill did this work for YEARS. (from the mid 1950's through the early 70's) So if you believe that the 'charade' was ongoing for that length of time than I find YOU to be a bit naive. This doesn't make sense at all. (unless there's more to it than is being said and you gain something by continuing to act less astute than you seemingly are?)

    and than there's this over and over again: 'CRASHED' ufo's?? I'll leave this up to the imagination of whomever reads these blogs.

    By Blogger Sheephoganess, at Sunday, April 11, 2010  

  • Sheep:

    You said:

    "There's also the FACT that Bill spoke very low key and NEVER profited in any way by what he had to say, EVER. Unlike yourself and even Lazar who eventually profited from the publicity he'd received from his stories."

    Er...How did I profit from his story??? I certainly did not.

    I DON'T link Bill with Lazar. I merely pointed out that there is evidence suggesting that (if true, of course) Lazar was fed spurious stories and shown spurious documents to support the notion that the craft he saw were ET when they may not have been.

    You say:

    "So if you believe that the 'charade' was ongoing for that length of time than I find YOU to be a bit naive. This doesn't make sense at all. (unless there's more to it than is being said and you gain something by continuing to act less astute than you seemingly are?)"

    I believe the charade has been going on since at least 1947 and is focused (to a large extent) on hiding highly-advanced aerial craft of human origins behind an ET smokescreen.

    The true irony of all this is that there really IS a genuine UFO phenomenon from somewhere else among us. And the Government is exploiting the real phenomenon to hide its classified work.

    I'm NOT questioning - at all - whether UFOs are real. What I am questioning is whether the Government has in its possession crashed, donated or acquired UFOs.

    UFOs from somewhere else are definitely flying around. Whether the Government has real UFOs in its possession is a different matter.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, April 11, 2010  

  • I apologize for misunderstanding where you have been coming from as far as true (by the Government's standards) Unidentified Flying Objects. By this I mean that MOST of what the general public sees in the sky is Unidentified to them but NOT to the Government so it is not really a UFO. As to flying disks the Government likely has some of those too. (of Earthly Origins so, once again, NOT ufo's)

    Also it was not my intent to indicate that you had profited in any way from Lazar's or Bill's stories but just to point out that you do profit by the entire genre by selling things (books) in regards to it and so has Lazar but Bill Uhouse never did this. When you are 'profiting' by doing something based on speculation or things which, for all intents and purposes, are unproven than it is often a good idea to keep the chain of banter going on it by throwing in conceptual possibilities that would make the public want 'more'. It's a good way to insure sales.

    It is NOT my intent to suggest that we have a 'multitude' of E.T. craft in our possession anywhere. My only intent is to indicate that we have at least ONE and that it was worked on for years by Bill and a few others and that MOST of what we have in the works as BLACK/SECRET to the PUBLIC (projects/crafts) are based, at least in part, by what was figured out as regards that one craft. (or it's individual parts) Now that Bill has passed away many or all of the others may have also passed on. It is also very likely that most of the others who worked on it weren't near as, let's say, 'bold' as Uhouse was and have since kept their traps closed! That is unless you are TOLD to talk like Lazar very likely was in an effort to throw a monkey wrench into what Bill had already blabbed about! Whether people choose to believe it or not, I must repeat, MOST of those who have or do actually work on such things DON'T TALK ABOUT them! At the very least it brings a great deal of ridicule and ultimately could very well cost a person their life. Why risk getting into a very unfortunate car accident by running your mouth?

    I could agree that, since Bill's 'project', it has all been a charade to throw people off the scent, but I don't think the charade began until after Bill's talking about (his) things.

    The last line in my last post should shed some light on how certain things are done... That is unless your mind is already made up that it was all a charade from the beginning? To each their own. Thank you for the conversation. This will be my last post and my contribution to yet more 'conceptual possibilities'. As far as I know Bill's information is STILL online in many locations so anyone can have a look. It is all FREE OF CHARGE, as it has always been, and openly available. If anyone is charging for his information, in any way, they are most definitely going against what he would have wished.

    Thanks again, Mr. Redfern.

    By Blogger Sheephoganess, at Sunday, April 11, 2010  

  • Sheep:

    As you mentioned that this was your last comment-post, I'll wrap up with a few final thoughts.

    1. The big problem I have with crashed UFO reports is that the Government ALWAYS gets ALL the evidence (the craft, bodies, body-parts, the huge debris fields etc), and the public or the witnesses NEVER do. Or if the public or witnesses do, it's ALWAYS inconclusive or got lost over the years and unavailable for scrutiny.

    This is in marked difference to major aircraft disasters where, for example, a 747 comes down and people are finding debris and body parts for MILES and often for months or years, and that evidence does NOT vanish.

    It's just not feasible that the Government would NEVER make a mistake in not gathering up all the material evidence and have it fall into (in their minds, at least) the wrong hands; i.e. the media, the research community, etc etc.

    2. Re profiting: I think you may not be aware of the general UFO scene from a financial perspective. I can assure you that most people within Ufology could NEVER make a living from writing about UFOs, or even a profit. I certainly can't.

    I DO work full-time as a writer, but most of that writing has zero to do with UFOs or even anything of a paranormal nature. And, the costs of investigating cases, phone-calls, flights, trips to government archives etc easily outweighs profits most times.

    3. Apology accepted, no problem. It is, however, interesting that many people have made the assumption that because I don't believe the Govt has acquired crashed UFOs, that this also means I don't believe we are being visited by something non-human.

    As I explained, I certainly DO believe we are being visited by something non-human.

    But because so many have made the wrong assumption, it does serve to demonstrate how the crashed/recovered UFO angle of Ufology has practically become inseperable from the rest of Ufology.

    It's almost like, in today's UFO research field, you HAVE to believe in crashed UFOs if you believe in UFOs per se.

    I just don't see why a belief in one angle (that UFOs are visiting us) seemingly requires a belief in the other angle (that they have crashed). But for so many, it does indeed.

    And, despite our differences on Govt-held UFOs, cheers for the stimulating debate!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, April 11, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home