UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, February 22, 2013

Project Stork and the Real MJ-12 Group


ts22.jpg

David Ritchie, in his book UFO: The Definitive Guide to Unidentified Flying Objects and Related Phenomena [MJF Books, NY, 1994, Page 157], reminds readers that Jacques Vallee discovered a memorandum in J. Allen Hynek’s files from a man whom Vallee tagged as Pentacle.

The memorandum indicated that a sub rosa group – government instigated? – was engaged in a large-scale analysis of UFOs well before the Robertson Panel, which the “secret group” wanted cancelled or postponed.

The Robertson Panel was unaware, apparently, of the “secret group’s” work.

Ritchie writes that “The memo also referred to a mysterious ‘Project Stork.’”

Internet links (via Google) about Project Stork include these:



And another from Philip Coppens:


In what little material and notes from Stork provides resides references that will help UFO buffs with Roswell and early UFO/flying disc events.

And that secret pre-Robertson Panel group was what MJ-12 was all about, except that MJ-12 was a bogus configuration, hoping to point UFO researchers to the early secret analytical group but ineffective as UFO aficionados didn't get the hint or purpose and got sidetracked by a desire to prove MJ-12 fraudulent, which it was, but it's intent was otherwise. 

(More about that upcoming.)

RR


56 Comments:

  • "To anyone who still failed to see the importance of the 1955 memorandrum, Vallee added that “the Pentacle proposal goes far beyond anything mentioned before. It daringly states that ‘many different types of aerial activity should be secretly and purposefully scheduled within the area’. It is difficult to be more clear. We are not talking simply about setting up observing stations and cameras. We are talking about large-scale, covert simulation of UFO waves under military control.”

    Since words fail me, I am searching for an appropriate emoticon that may express what I think I would like to say. It is difficult to be more clear.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • You see in this, Don, an explanation of or for the Rhodes photograph, do you not?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Rich, you are suggesting Vallee's conclusion is supported by the memo?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Yes, based upon Nick Redfern's research about government machinations in the early years of the saucer "epidemic."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • I mean whether Vallee's conclusion (not yours or Nicks's) is supported by the memo in the article.

    I skipped through the Coppin article to find the memo and read that, then read the article. My first thought was self congratulation for not having wasted time reading Vallee.

    Am I missing something?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Don:

    Now you're eschewing supporting material?

    What Vallee suggests is supported by other activities in the 50s, by the military and CIA.

    My Chapter in Nick's book "Contactees" about the Villas Boas case and a slew of other instances in Nick's Pentagon book and his current posting at Mysterious Universe provide more than circumstantial evidence that give credence to Vallee's declaration.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • It is not at issue what supports Vallee's conclusion from elsewhere and others. I'm asking whether you think what I quoted from the article (Vallee's conclusion):

    "We are talking about large-scale, covert simulation of UFO waves under military control.”

    is supported by the memo he is referring to (and published in Coppin's article).

    Forget about the supporting evidence, for this.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Vallee suggested that one read into the memo what he read into it.

    Why would I or anyone dismiss supporting evidence?

    That's a stupid suggestion, no matter what's being discussed.

    You're not being ironic here, Don, just intellectually petulant.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Vallee read things into the memo. That, I agree with

    "You're not being ironic here, Don, just intellectually petulant."

    Have it as you will. Don't look through the scope.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Don, I've always assumed you were a well-read UFO buff.

    But now I get the impression that you've isolated your reading to a few key areas of the UFO topic.

    Also, I was surprised how you neglected to address the Wanaque issue and photo in your usual expert way.

    Lance moody did -- and I'll be posting his efforts shortly -- and Bruce did also.

    Are you tired? Irked by the UFO nonsense?

    Vallee, even though I and others sometimes disagree with his theses, is not a man to be dismissed lightly.

    He is brilliant and his views merit consideration, serious consideration.

    If he sees something in the Pentacle memo and there are other memos and documents that impinge upon the memo's insights, why would a sensible person discount Vallee's views?

    You appear eager to throw away Vallee's point.

    Why?

    What do you know that he doesn't or I don't or what Nick Redfern doesn't know?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Rich, over the years I have given you no reason to think I was well read UFO buff, since I've said here often enough I am not interested in ufology, and that means I am not interested in the ideas in the books written by ufologists. My interests intersect with ufology regarding the pre-Keyhoe, pre-Scully era -- that is, before ufology, before the "believers" and before the "debunkers".

    If ufologists have accurate facts, I'm interested. Some do.

    "You appear eager to throw away Vallee's point.

    Why?"

    Because I cannot imagine how he derived it from the memo -- at least no non-silly way.

    "What do you know that he doesn't or I don't or what Nick Redfern doesn't know?"

    Apparently, that AF doctrine, as far back as before the umbilical cord to the Army was cut, claimed aerospace as its domain. That claim extended to owning the saucer wave of 1947 and beyond. In the political struggle to maintain and advance that claim they had to deal with poachers, such as the FBI, the Navy, the CIA, which they did, with efficiency. A-2/CIC dealt with the FBI via the trashcan lid memo, a psyop against Hoover's weakness (FBI public image and reputation), General LeMay handled the Navy by political means, The Robertson Panel AFOSI operation was directed against the CIA's burgeoning interest in the saucers.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Don:

    The suggested early infusion of a "secret or semi-secret group" -- not MJ-12! -- analyzing and creating UFO events goes to the heart of those pristine UFO reports I like.

    Vallee suggests that those early accounts are not as pristine as I believe(d) them to be: Roswell, Rhodes, Villas Boas, et cetera.

    We have a phenomenon that fascinates and is real, but has been compromised. not just by inept ufologists and debunkers or skeptics, but by the very groups and persons we, citizens, rely upon (errantly it seems) to enlighten us about the phenomenon.

    That's a pisser.

    Battelle (as Mr. Bragalia has proven, certifiably, to me) has been involved with UFO and saucers since 1947 -- and NASA's archive material supports his findings, while implicating the Navy in heavy, heavy ways.

    Vallee's suggestion leads us to attempt a separation of wheat from chaff.

    That you are not a rabid UFO buff means that you don't care.

    The rest of us who are UFO afflicted need Vallee's insights and anyone else's -- persons with cachet and credibility.

    For me, that eliminates the die-hard skeptics and ET enthusiasts, although the ETH is not anathema to my way of thinking.

    Your oblique approach to the UFO topic is often helpful, by sneaking us into UFO insights that are not readily apparent.

    And when you shirk your "duty" to enlighten, it's maddening, somewhat; not catastrophic but irritating.

    It's intellectual petulance.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • "Vallee suggests that those early accounts are not as pristine as I believe(d) them to be: Roswell, Rhodes, Villas Boas, et cetera."

    He does?

    Based on what? A memo proposing a reasonable in theory, but logistically impractical operation to gather good information about ufos sighted? In 1952? Reminds me of the green fireball operation a few years earlier, except in place ahead of time in a hotspot (ufos are more predictable than green fireballs).

    Look, unless there is something in that memo I cannot see (please, tell me what it is), and I don't mean other information you or Nick believe supports Vallee's statement, I have to exit this discussion, because, whoa, have I walked into the wrong venue.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Very much agree with the above.

    I'm sure that it's fun to say that everyone is doing it wrong but me.

    "Your oblique approach to the UFO topic is often helpful, by sneaking us into UFO insights that are not readily apparent."

    Name one?

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Don:

    You said you didn't read the whole Coppins [sic] piece....and you didn't.

    How about what was in the other links, or the book that I quoted from?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Lance...

    I'm being nice.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • http://www.philipcoppens.com/pentacle.html

    H. C. Cross

    HCC:??

    H. C. Cross is almost certainly Tony's old buddy from Battelle, Howard Cross. ;)

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • "You said you didn't read the whole Coppins [sic] piece....and you didn't."

    I wrote (above) "I skipped through the Coppin article to find the memo and read that, then read the article. My first thought was self congratulation for not having wasted time reading Vallee."

    "How about what was in the other links"

    Already read them (and more) in PBB.

    "or the book that I quoted from?"

    Did you quote from Contactees? I haven't read it.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • The Ritchie book Don, the Ritchie book.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Hello Rich, I'm paddling into the waters again.

    I agree that the 'PM' suggests that a different layer of officialdom was analysing UFO sighting reports. Not conclusive and maybe impossible to even verify, but it's not immediately absurd to speculate that high-quality reports were filtered on to another group.

    The fabled 'Estimate of the Situation' was apparently rejected, but would that necessarily mean that some personnel didn't continue to maintain their interest or pursue more evidence for their hypotheses?

    That's obviously speculation and intended to raise questions. I'm not a ufologist nor a historian of US military protocols. However I have read a lot of leaked internal memos from the wake of 9/11 and they clearly record how organisations like the CIA and FBI can be pulling in different directions and unaware of ongoing investigations. Even inter-departmental agendas can be conflicting and almost blind to what others are doing.

    For me, that opens the possibility that a think-tank could have been pursuing its own agenda. Seems like a smart thing to do too.

    I agree that Vallee is a brilliant mind in the field. We don't have to agree with every thought he has and he's often misunderstood too.

    Saying that, the Pentacle Memo doesn't suggest to me that UFO incidents were simulated. I've read it so many times and actively tried to read it in that way without success. Rather it seems to me that a plan was devised to effectively monitor every aspect of an area considered as a 'hotspot.' As such, someone says they saw a 'UFO' at 21:00 and the operation would know that it was an aircraft. Or not.

    Vallee was involved in two exercises that emulated his interpretation of the Memo in the late '90s and mid-2000s. The first was when he tried to (what's the word?) provoke, invoke or 'create' a hotspot in California. This had no measurable success. The second was his involvement with the Skinwalker Ranch and it's anyone's guess what the heck was going on with all that.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Oh, right. "The mysterious Project Stork". No, I haven't read it. Referring to Stork as "mysterious" would put me off.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Kandinsky...

    Thank goodness you're back!

    A voice of eminent reason.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • This subject is like an affliction. Always coming back like malaria.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Yes, K....it's epidemic (for some).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Rich wrote:
    “The memorandum indicated that a sub rosa group – government instigated? – was engaged in a large-scale analysis of UFOs well before the Robertson Panel, which the “secret group” wanted cancelled or postponed.”

    I’m not sure why you’re using melodramatic terms for what are pretty ordinary actions. I think you and others are overinterpreting the “Pentacle” memo beyond all recognition. The sub rosa group you’re referring to is a bunch of staff scientists within the Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) who were hired to perform various analytical tasks for the Air Force’s Blue Book project, which was headed up at that point in time by Capt. Ed Ruppelt. BMI employee H. C. Cross and fellow members of his “cabal” were what we in the government refer to as “support service contractors” (sometimes also known as “beltway bandits”).

    So the officer in charge (Ruppelt) “instigates” a large scale analysis by turning to a subordinate civilian employee (Mr. Miles E. Coll), providing him with funds, and ordering him to set up a study task with BMI to determine the statistical properties of what, by that time, had turned out to be thousands of collected UFO reports. Coll would probably be what is known as the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR). When the contractor personnel have some results or advice to report, the formal chain of command is through the COTR to the sponsoring officer. Naturally, Cross proposes to use what at the time was the state of the art in perfoming such analyses—Hollerith punch cards and early card-reading electronic computers. The study task is classified at the “Secret” level (which appears to be the highest level at which Blue Book operated) and is given the code name “Stork”. Why does this ordinary way of doing business in the Air Force deserve the term sub rosa? It was simply one of thousands of such classified studies and projects being conducted by the government at the time. This was a classified study, not a conspiracy.

    You have to understand that individuals like Cross are at the very bottom of the food chain. The way it works is that the Air Force (Navy, Army, NASA, DARPA, etc.) decides to work on some subject that requires professional scientific knowledge, skill, and abilities in order to perform mathematical and other analyses. Uniformed military officers do not, as a rule, have such knowledge, skill, and abilities. Civilian scientists and engineers employed directly by the military branch or government agency might have such capabilities, but there are never enough of them to do as much work as is available. Usually, support service contractors outnumber direct employees of an agency by a factor of 3 or 4 to 1; that is how the bulk of technical work inside the US Government gets done. The desires of the lowly support service contractor—whether to postpone or cancel a CIA panel or conduct a large scale social psychology experiment—carry no particular weight other than as advice. Cross was an adviser, not a decision maker.

    What Cross is telling Ruppelt in the memo is that it is difficult to come to scientifically justifiable conclusions regarding the statistics of the UFO phenomenon because the quality of the individual reports varies all over the place, and because the computerized analysis had not been completed yet. He is simply making the suggestion that if the Robertson Panel waited to convene until the BMI study was completed, then they (the Panel) would have better information to work with in coming to their recommendations. The CIA ignored Cross’ recommendation which, the memo says, was communicated to the CIA at a meeting about a month before the panel convened. Neither Cross, Ruppelt, nor anyone else in the Air Force had any authority whatsoever to postpone or cancel a CIA-sponsored activity.

    By Blogger Larry, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • The CIA long ago admitted that they used and deftly manipulated the cover of UFOs. It was or is on their web site..look under archived reports for Petes Sake. Jeez, much ado about nothing.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Larry...

    I'm quoting or paraphrasing Ritchie in his book.

    That said, Anthony Bragalia has been good enough to keep me in the loop about what he knows of Cross and Battelle; it is startling.

    Tony has written about this at this blog and his.

    You and others would do well to read what Mr. Bragalia has uncovered.

    Mr. Cross is not simp. He's has been a S.O.B at Battelle and with anyone who tries to find out what Battelle's involvement with UFOs and Roswell has been and is.

    I rarely am melodramatic here as regulars know.

    I actually underplayed what is known about the pre-Robertson group and its heavy-handed machinations.

    Your "support service contractors" were not nice guys -- CIA operatives never are.

    You can take a rosy view of the pre-Robertson group if you like, but I prefer to see it for what it really was.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • "Anthony Bragalia has been good enough to keep me in the loop about what he knows of Cross and Battelle; it is startling."
    Here we go again...Well..what is it?
    I know let me guess, your lips are sealed. I will refrain from further comment until I am equally "startled."

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Bruce:

    I've asked Tony to respond about this.

    He's already covered it here, earlier, or at his blog.

    It's not a secret thing like the Roswell "evidence."

    I can say that the documented phone conversations with Cross and other Battelle people will confirm that the place -- Battelle -- has been at the center of the Roswell story and UFOs also.

    I don't know why you and Don are shorn from contacts that can enlighten you about the UFO underbelly.

    You both are better credentialed than I am about the topic....or so I assume.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • Ummmm. This is kind of the premise of Mark Pilkington's "Mirage Men" book. Pilkington even brings in Vallee near the end and notes that Vallee shared how the UFO "core story" was dreamed up.

    UFOs have provided a convenient cover for intelligence operations, both here and very likely in the old Soviet Union as well. Russian rocket launches (and failed launches) probably account for a high percentage of anomalies reported there during the Cold War.

    The cover up everyone just knows in their bones exists is not a cover up of alien visitations, but rather a cover up of tests and operations of advanced craft as well as tests of cutting edge weapons, all developed with those black ops dollars appropriated since WWII.

    I, for one, have never believed that the black triangles are anything other than the replacement for the decommissioned Blackbird (which was the replacement for the U2). The timing of their widespread appearance is too suspiciously close to the Blackbird's "outing" for them not to be.

    None of this means that there isn't a real unknown phenomenon behind some UFO reports, but it does means that NO report can be accepted at face value, no matter how convincing it may seem. The burden of proof falls on those who claim it was aliens, NOT on those who express strong doubts it was.

    Rather than sneering at skeptics, Ufology needs to develop a hard-nosed, skeptical viewpoint of its own. By blindly and rigidly insisting it's all caused by ET, the "true believers" set themselves up to be duped.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Friday, February 22, 2013  

  • RR:

    You refer to "the documented phone conversations with Cross and other Battelle people".

    How are phone conversations 'documented', other than being recorded at the time?

    What are you talking about - are you saying that decades later a whistleblower has informed Bragalia that phone conversations concerning Roswell were going on between Cross and others?

    I am still waiting for the smallest bit of documented evidence that Cross or any other Battelle people had ever heard of the Roswell UFO case, let alone researched it. Search all their available literature and I predict you will not find one single mention of it.

    There's a challenge for you and AJB. Get to it. I await your findings.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • Folks-

    Google, in quotes: "Roswell Metal Scientist: The Curious Dr. Cross" to learn more.

    The story is complex and the investigation on this continues...

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • "I don't know why you and Don are shorn from contacts that can enlighten you about the UFO underbelly."

    I don't have any contacts. What do I look like, a UFO investigator?

    Why should I provide anything to you on this? You won't listen, and perhaps you can't because the takeaway here is the sad state of Vallee's rationality, and that you can't (or won't) see it.

    You've done this before, taking your esthetic delectation of the tale as proof of its truth. Templeton, for example, and Stephens and Gray (which you might recall Bruce and I were right and you were wrong).


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • Yes, CDA (Christopher, I am saying that there is documentation that Cross interacted with others at Battelle and the military about UFOs and the metal found at an accident at Roswell in 1947.

    And Don, you are working in a vacuum, because you don't see how your sidebars have marginalized you from others who have relevant things to impart about UFOs.

    You provide quirky information that I find intriguing and useful (sometimes).

    Others do not see your input as worthwhile, as you know from comments here and at Kevin Randle's blog.

    You can continue to be a renegade UFO buff (or UFO accumulator of minutiae that may or may not be pertinent).

    But if so, you will remain on the fringe of discussions, no matter in which venue you choose to visit.

    I allow most of what you provide to appear here, because I like you.

    But much of it is rambling detritus that is useless for the subject matter or topic.

    I tell you this as friend.

    Your web-site lies fallow because of its tangential nature.

    Now don't get huffy.....tell me to f*ck off if you like.

    But consider what I and others keep telling you: you are raising issues inside topics here and elsewhere that are not germane.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • "Yes, CDA (Christopher), I am saying that there is documentation that Cross interacted with others at Battelle and the military about UFOs and the metal found at an accident at Roswell in 1947."

    And I'll believe it when I see it.

    Where is this documentation that Cross and others interacted with the military over Roswell?

    If there was a genuine air accident at Roswell and the USAF wanted some expertise from metallurgy specialists about it then yes they may well have called upon Battelle to help.

    But that is not what AJB has been putting about since 2009 - he has specifically told us about how Battelle examined Roswell crash debris (you know the ET craft debris) after which they managed to develop Nitinol, and so on.

    Presumably this documentation will soon surface, to be available to us all.

    Until then it is all rumor, and merely anecdotal tales from A to B via C and D, ending up in Bragalia's files. Exciting for him maybe, but useless to anyone else.

    I'll say it again: nobody at Battelle had ever heard of a Roswell UFO at any time pre-1980.

    But you can always disprove me, can't you?

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • Yes, Christopher....I was and am almost as skeptical as you about Battelle's metal analysis of Roswell debris, but from what I've seen, the evidence (and documentation) is more than circumstantial.

    I assume that Mr. Bragalia plans on doing more with what his pains-taking research has uncovered -- a book or TV show perhaps.

    And I'm guessing he hasn't provided what he's uncovered online (here or elsewhere) as that would be casting pearls before swine.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • "But consider what I and others keep telling you: you are raising issues inside topics here and elsewhere that are not germane."

    Consider what others in this discussion are telling you, Rich. For one.

    For another, you might stop for a mo' and read what I've written rather than being defensive and snarkish.

    You have successfully avoided answering what I thought was a simple enough question. I think I asked it three times in different ways, so that it was very specific.
    Instead, you dance away on tippy-toe and bitch about me. "Germane"? Ah, me.

    You don't know what you don't know, is all. Same for those "others".

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • CDA-

    “Roswell Debris Confirmed as Extraterrestrial: Lab Located, Scientists Named” (May 26,2009)
    http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.html

    “Roswell Metal Scientist: The Curious Dr. Cross” (May 31, 2009)
    http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-metal-scientist-curious-dr.html

    “The Final Secrets of Roswell’s Memory Metal Revealed” (June 7,2009)
    http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-secrets-of-roswells-memory-metal.html

    “Scientist Admits to Study of Roswell Crash Debris” (August 16, 2009)
    http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/08/scientist-admits-to-study-of-roswell.html

    “Roswell, Battelle & Memory Metal: The New Revelations” (August 8, 2010)
    http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2010/08/roswell-battelle-memory-metal-new.html

    Richard Weaver (formerly w/ the AF who wrote a critical analysis of the crash), after reading these pieces, had a very interesting email dialog with me...

    AJB


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • Don...

    I know that I'm flawed and don't get it sometimes, but a few venues think I do get it.

    You are arguing the Vallee thing.

    What Vallee suggests is augmented by what Nick Redfern has discovered and placed in several books and at his online sites.

    Moreover, that the military has concocted UFO events is supplemented by what Bosco Nedelcovic -- a proven CIA operative told me in the 1970s and which I've relayed online and Nick has written a full chapter (20) about in his book Contactees which you have not read you say.

    So I know things that you do not but you insist that you have the goods.

    You don't and saying you do doesn't make it so.

    This is why Lance Moody dismisses you, as does Tony Bragalia and Kevin Randle.

    Neither the "believers" nor the skeptics let your comments stand.

    You provide puffery and nothing more.

    I find that quaint; others do not.

    Vallee thought the Pentacle memo important and extrapolated upon it, as you can see by reading Vallee or Coppens account.

    With supporting materials and credible information from those in the know, I also think Vallee's suggestion is important enough to be pursued further.

    I'm not being snarky.

    I'm trying to tell you that you are not knowledgeable about the topic, as you note: you haven't read Nick's books or anything more than what I've provided, and you dismiss some authors and writings because they offend you.

    You are a UFO passer-by but keep trying to leave something in your wake.

    Why?

    if you aren't interested in UFOs per se, why not go forward with your interest in the peripheral aspects.

    Jerry Clark wrote at UFO UpDates today that his recreational reading is History.

    If that's your interest or something like it, you should pursue that and leave the UFO topic free of inane questions and asides.

    However, if you're sticking around, ask your questions in an non-obscurant way and I'll try to answer them as best as I can.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • "Vallee thought the Pentacle memo important and extrapolated upon it, as you can see by reading Vallee or Coppens account."

    It is relevant because of its' content and because Cross wrote it. I don't know that Vallee or Coppens even knew who he was and they still thought it was relevant.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • On the matter of things like Villas-Boas being a staged event, and how agencies have manipulated the UFO subject, there's one document that so many forget about.

    According to a Technical Report prepared by the Air Force’s flying saucer study, Project Grudge, in August 1949: "...Upon eliminating several additional incidents due to vagueness and duplication, there remain 228 incidents, which are considered in this report. Thirty of these could not be explained, because there was found to be insufficient evidence on which to base a conclusion..."

    However...

    Arguably the most relevant and intriguing entry in the document appears in the "Recommendations" section and states:

    "That Psychological Warfare Division and other governmental agencies interested in psychological warfare be informed of the results of this study."

    So, we have - way back in 49 - the military having an understantding of how the UFO issue could play a role in psy-ops.

    This doesnt mean there aren't real UFO events. There clearly are. And the military knew that. The military (and intel world) clearly knew too, however, that it was a subject that could be "used" for all manner of reasons.

    That 1949 document may be one of the earliest official documents we have on how officialdom decided to make novel use of the UFO subject as well as investigate it.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • Rich, I await developments on all fronts somewhere north of Roswell, and also Battelle's ET titanium studies, the "mysterious Project Stork", and the equally mysterious, and "highly secretive", Dr. Cross.

    Let us know when you and the "others" are ready to wow us. I mean with something besides adjectives.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • Take it easy Donny....we're friends, you and I, I hope.

    But is it our task to "wow" you and "others" visiting here"

    Or is it our task to titillate?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • The Vallee matter that you featured in your article remains unexamined by you or whoever the "others" are. Until you do, you will have nothing but material to toggle eyeballs.

    Anyone familiar with the relevant (and public) documents can recognize the errors being made, and how they are made, but with Vallee above, such knowledge is not required in order to realize Vallee had a problem, and those who do not see it or refuse to deal with it may have a similar problem.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • Don:

    You've really got to let this go.

    Vallee reads into a memo. There are other things known or found out by others that validate Vallee's interpretation.

    It's Paul Kimball's "Other Side of Truth" or the bromide that there's always more to the story.

    Just because you haven't -- by your own admission -- read about the supporting materials or information and thus can't understand how some of us see value in Mr. Vallee's interpretation or extrapolation, you have to excuse yourself from the debate.

    You seem anxious to validate the idea that you are smarter than everyone else in this matter or are just being, as I keep writing, intellectually petulant, or merely obnoxious because no one is accepting your obtuse take on the issue.

    I can't defend Vallee's view if you won't accept what Nick, Tony, and others have supplied as supporting material.

    If you don't see value in Vallee's observation or my lauding it, I say tough cookies.

    I don't give a damn at this point.

    I've tried to be patient and solicitous of your stand even though see it as nutty or ignorant.

    But you have got to let it go.

    If you send another comment about it, it won't see the light of day here.

    Even if you were to write that you accept the Vallee view and my promotion of it, I would't allow the comment.

    You've gotten loony about the matter....loony I tell you.

    And if it were in my power, I'd hie thee off to a psychiatrist, pronto.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • So, don't post this. Not an issue for me.

    By not examining Vallee's rationales for his reading of the memo, say in his response to Barry Greenwood, you will not see the errors -- except the obvious one I've pointed to, and that one is not the issue. It is an 'effect', not a 'cause'.

    You, Tony, and Nick, as evidenced by what you have written about it, make the same errors as Vallee did, and so find his opinion confirmed by your research. For Vallee, except for the failure of his reason, there is an excuse: the information was not easily gotten in the 1960s. Today, it is a mere browse. You guys have no excuse.

    You won't see it. You don't want to.

    As Gilles' says...


    Adios,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • So is that it Don?

    Do you have it out of your system?

    Yes, you're right. We're just stupid guys.

    You've tried to enlighten us (me mostly) and we (I mostly) just don't get it.

    Feel better? Can sleep soundly tonight?

    Phew....now let's move on.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 23, 2013  

  • Sometimes the back and forth between you and Don reminds me of the Abbott and Costello "Who's on First?" comedy routine. Even when you're not hilarious, you still make me smile.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • Yah, it's entertainment, PG...

    Meant to lighten the discussion, which shouldn't be taken too seriously in the first place.

    Don has a knack for taking discussions into the ether, and I was suckered into going with him.

    He's still sending comments but I'm just deleting them.

    The "Who's on first?" thing is over.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • ...after much reading and thinking, my leaning is that the "Vallee" entity has been attributed much, much greater power than the facts demonstrate, perhaps due to the 'exotic' foreign accent and flowing locks, n'est pas?

    ...I mean, I am likely the only girl here to have actually READ Vallee's diary 'Forbidden Science' ....perhaps someone here can post a link to a scan of the scathing review of Vallee written for IUR 20 years ago by R-squared's alter-ego Michael Swords with help from one Janie Zeidman.

    ...anyway, these URLs will offer a starting off point:

    http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/vallee-rodeghier.letter

    http://badufos.blogspot.com/2012/02/jacques-vallee-j-allen-hynek-and.html

    ...truly, all, how is Vallee anything more than the Inspector Clouseau of UFOs?

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • P.S.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_vallee04.htm

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • Jacques Vallee has cachet, KP.

    Something neither you nor I have.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • Vallee has some gravitas in the field but the memo and who wrote it is the thing. Such lack of focus is a fundamental problem in the UFO field.

    It's like watching the Super Bowl and focusing on the announcers.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • R-squared:
    Allow me to respectfully disagree;
    ..I stand solidly on the side of Steve Martin's 'evaluation' of the French.....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • It's votre prerogative to disagree ici mon ami.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • Oui!

    “Boy, those French! They have a different word for everything.”

    ― Steve Martin

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home