The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Sunday, July 17, 2011

The CIA and UFOs


Gerald K. Haines provides a paper that peruses the CIA's UFO activity from 1947 to 1990.

Click here for the PDF

5 Comments:

  • I think Haines presents a moving target and the truth is, perhaps, somewhere in the middle between the rabid 'CIA knows all' crowd and the perception he seeks to put across here. Others have studied it in greater detail, but there's an evocative sense of Grudge and Blue Book with their hollow concessions that 'Sure, we had a look and found nothing interesting.' He treads the familiar path of secret tech (U-2s etc), misidentifications and hysterics and overlooks the contradictions in such explanations.

    That isn't to say that all the reasons given aren't true, but they are hardly *all* of the truth. U-2 flights, for example, began in '55 and don't explain the apparent UFO waves and flaps that precede them. U-2s weren't formation flyers and then there's the rather detailed sighting report by Kelly Johnson who was familiar with flight-characteristics and later helped to design the U-2.

    For me, one passage is notable in that it implies more to the UFO phenomena than was intended and that the CIA had ceased to monitor potential national security hazards...

    'These included counterintelligence concerns that the Soviets and the KGB were using US citizens and UFO groups to obtain information on sensitive US weapons development programs (such as the Stealth aircraft), the vulnerability of the US air-defense network to penetration by foreign missiles mimicking UFOs, and evidence of Soviet advanced technology associated with UFO sightings.'

    In 97, the Soviet threat was no longer there, but wouldn't 'US citizens and UFO groups' still be weak links in the chain of security? Would the CIA stop viewing these as potential leaks of sensitive information? In their shoes, I doubt it. On top of that, 'mimicking UFOs' is suggestive of an actual flight-characteristic to be mimicked. What could he mean?

    I won't go on and bore you with more. Needless to say, the closing paragraphs are like a paternal pat on the head for the readers as we're reassured that UFOs are no more than cultural fears and conspiracy theories. It's an interesting read and valuable history, ufologically and politically. The CIA have a role to play in the lives of people across the world and as some UFO researchers are constantly trying to 'look up their skirts,' it's inevitable that they, like the abyss, look back.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Sunday, July 17, 2011  

  • K:

    Even as UFOs have diminished in media relevance and public interest, they still retain an aura of mystery, one that the CIA and military establishments continue to be awed by.

    Yet the mystery eludes them, although the U.S. Navy knows more than it's saying.

    UFOs have essentially been benign, in a significant sense, but what they are, or if they have a purpose, has eluded the agencies (CIA, NSA, DoD, et cetera) just as what UFOs are has eluded "ufologists" and those intrepid but incompetent researchers who've mucked up the UFO topic as much as, or more, than the CIA and those who've tried to cover-up or divert the public away from the mystery.

    The UFO enigma can't be resolved by theories or hypotheses, but only by impressive evidence of various kinds.

    No official construct has attempted to acquire impressive evidence; that is, by serious attempts.

    Even Allen Hynek was cavalier in his sojourns to find out what people were experiencing, as was the case with the 1996 Ann Arbor area swamp gas fiasco, from which Hynek never recovered.

    So, rebuking Haines or the CIA is an intellectual misadventure.

    Everyone has been slovenly when it comes to UFOs, even those of us who pretend not to be...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, July 17, 2011  

  • I think we agree on much of this. At the same time, I think that a large part of never reaching a conclusion is down to some good analyses being disputed, overlooked or dismissed.

    It seems that the refusal to acknowledge the presence of 'who-knows-what' has committed us all to this feed-back loop of endless reiterations of the same points by the same groups and personalities.

    On the bright side, it beats complaining about the weather. :)

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Sunday, July 17, 2011  

  • K:

    You say -- "At the same time, I think that a large part of never reaching a conclusion is down to some good analyses being disputed, overlooked or dismissed."

    That makes the point exactly.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, July 17, 2011  

  • Yeah, Kandinsky, I think you have it basically correct, that the truth is somewhere in the middle, and this article by Haines has long been thought to be more significant for what it leaves out, and doesn't discuss (or even mention), of historical significance and fact, than what it actually says, which is only partially accurate. Classic disinfo methodology, IMHO.

    No mention of Lt. Patterson's F-94 UFO close encounter in the midst of the July '52 "Washington Nationals" wave of that year ["The Air Force scrambled interceptor aircraft to investigate, but they found nothing."], no mention of the 1957 RB-47 incident, no mention of the Sept. 1976 Iranian F-4B incident, etc.

    No mention of the Bolender memorandum, indicating that national security related UFO incidents are, under JANAP 146, reported through higher military channels via CIRVIS and MERINT reporting mechanisms, etc.

    Nothing to see here boys, move along...

    For second opinions on Haines article, see:

    http://brumac.8k.com/cia_explaination.html

    http://www.cufos.org/IUR_article3.html

    http://keyholepublishing.com/Haines.htm

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Sunday, July 17, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home