UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, February 24, 2013

The CIA’s UFO Events

In The Lawless State: The Crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies by Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, and Christine Marwick [Penguin Books, NY 1976] on page 51, the heading is Drug Testing and Behavior Modification, the authors recount how “the CIA began to develop a defensive program of drug testing in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which turned into behavior modification experiments on unsuspecting individuals.”

Nick Redfern has researched this activity in books (The NASA Conspiracies. The Pyramids and the Pentagon, Final Events, Contactees, Men in Black) and online (The Mysterious Universe. NickRedfern.com, et cetera).

There is a plethora of information one can find by Google searches.

I’ve provided the testimony of CIA operative Bosco Nedelcovic who recounted the details of such experimentation which is the 1957 Villas Boas incident in Brazil.

And one might assume that the Betty and Barney Hill “abduction” was a military/CIA operation, as was the Pascagoula case.

The Scoriton Affair in England was, I’ve conjectured, a CIA/military invention, and I think Mr. Redfern believes that Rendlesham was also.

There are other UFO incidents that smack of contrivance or military/CIA interference: The Cash-Landrum case, the Falcon Lake episode, the Phoenix lights scenario, the 1958 Loch Raven Dam sighting/encounter, et cetera.

Nick Redfern suggests that some contactee tales were inspired by military of CIA machinations.

The Pentacle memo, referenced here the other day, inspired Jacques Vallee to extrapolate the kinds of behavior modification that The Lawless State book recounts.

That there have been bona fide and real UFO/flying saucer encounters and sightings since ancient times and well into the 1940s/50s up to the present time is without question.

It then becomes incumbent upon UFO buffs to discern which UFO report is meaningful as a profound result of a weird phenomenon and which is, possibly, a staged event that is grist for those who are more concerned about covert government activities than those who are enchanted by UFOs.

What we know, pretty much: Kenneth Arnold saw something strange near Mount Rainier in 1947, something odd (sociologically or militaristically) happened near Roswell in 1947, something(s) odd flew over Washington D.C in 1952, military installations have been subject to UFO or contrived CIA probing (events that need clarification), weird encounters (hallucinatory events) have been rife in Europe, South America, and many U.S. venues, and sub rosa groups inside government supported laboratories (Battelle, Sandia, et al.) and agencies (NSA, CIA, Army Intelligence, NASA, et cetera) or universities (MIT, the Naval Academy, Stanford, et al.) exist and have studied or are studying the UFO phenomenon.

We also know or think we know that some UFO photographs thought to be authentic are hoaxes: the Trent Photos, The Rhodes photo, the Heflin photos, and the ballyhooed Wanaque beam photo.

The UFO topic is a carnival or potpourri of sightings and events that are egregiously difficult to decipher, and deciphering has been left to ignorant or inept UFO aficionados who expend what little moronic intelligence they have trying to convince others that what they don’t know is the UFO truth.

The UFO truth is a deeply embedded truth, of something mentally devious or something endemic to the human condition and history that, like the existence of God, is not meant to be solved but is meant to irk the few humans who find the phenomenon to be worthy of time and effort.

UFOs are a curiosity, nothing more, in practical terms.

Pursuing the meaning or explanation of UFOs should not be encased in behavior that is serious or life-altering.

UFOs are only worthy of a hobby status, and not a hobby status that increases one’s status in life.

It’s a foolishness that invites derision from normal individuals and those connected to the UFO subject should take into account that spending time or money on UFOs is a pathology that would better be shunned, if only to maintain a semblance of sanity I na world that is intrinsically insane.



  • You probably know that a certain Dr Leon Davidson, in 1960, theorised that the CIA was behind Adamski's desert contacts with Venusians etc and helped to promote his first two books. I recall the then editor of FSR, Waveney Girvan, who had published the Leslie-Adamski book, telling readers that Davidson's CIA idea was balderdash.

    You probably did not know, however, that this same Dr Davidson, once told me, sometime in the 1970s, that the CIA was very likely behind the Allingham contactee story that followed Adamski's. (Believe that if you dare!).

    The Washington radar flap was, guess what, the CIA at it again. He even suggested that a Norwegian close encounter by two women in August 1954 was caused by the CIA.

    Smart guy was Doctor Davidson, with top security clearances (so he told us). Actually his ideas sounded not bad at the time. But they had no real substance and died a quick death. He faded from the UFO scene thereafter.

    Is someone trying to revive them, in another form?

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • We should all be so perfect as to take our own advice, let alone heed a note of caution from others regarding obsessiveness that have lead to the many cases of bad things happening to good people.
    For myself, I have trended to focus on one aspect of the phenomenon as it is close to home and observable, which are the observers of these events involved in extraordinary experiences. Call them subtle influences on the human condition.
    That does not discount whatever level of materialistic reality these objects that are really subjects are inferring. For if for the remotest reason(s), they have a transient quality of a material nature, it is all the more important to more deeply understand the human condition as best as one can explore it, should an encounter of a larger scope occur. We can not control this phenomenon in any self aware manner unless we are deluded as you suggest, to think that the rationality of logic suffices. For over a half century, it has not sufficed, yet, as you say, there it is, from time to time, staring in our face often provoking our most deeply held psychological weaknesses. Desire, narcissism, deception, exaggeration, envy, anger, exhibitionism, paranoia, etc. Call the phenomenon what Paul Kimball concluded at one time, it is more a sociological creature than a objectified reality at this point in time.
    Sadly, I expect your words of this post as a cautionary tale will go unheeded and the phenomenon is very much alive.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • Christopher(CDA):

    I communicated rather heavily with Leon Davidson and have some of that communication online here or at the RRRGroup blog.

    I loved the guy.

    His CIA interpreted Socorro insignia was brilliant, maybe not right, but like Rudiak's Ramey memo interpretation, creative and imaginative.

    If Leon Davidson told me something, I'd take it to the bank...maybe not for deposit but for authentication.

    I like people who stick their necks out to present hypotheticals, so long as those theses are rooted in creative, non-egoistic ideas.


    The phenomenon is a real phenomenon, of course -- evanescent and/or material.

    I'm in a situation that allows me to be foolish, following UFOs.

    (Some of the newspaper accounts of my lifes-style -- online here -- show why that is so.)

    I only caution others to be careful sloughing off by being absorbed in the UFO maelstrom: Gene Steinberg for instance, and a few others, one or two on the brink of a mental breakdown, who could slip into a total insanity if they haven't already, as evidenced by their comments here and at Kevin Randle's blog or UFO UpDates.

    UFOs are not a problem for normal human beings.

    The phenomenon only attracts those who like mysteries or those who are suffused with pathologies of various kinds.....need I name them?

    If all humans absorbed by the UFO topic died tomorrow, the world would not be a lesser place, by any means.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • Some days it beats cleaning out the garage hands down

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • That's for sure, B....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • UFOs are a curiosity, nothing more, in practical terms.
    UFO is a field where people blind of the IFO field are playing the
    farseeing, while they are one-eyed only.
    One eye to UFO, the other ignoring IFO...
    Sorry, the psychologist is becoming "philosopher", or sarcastic, time to time.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • You are asking us to believe that the same CIA, which has bungled just about every covert mission in its history, is somehow responsibe for a series of successful "fake" UFO reports. And much of your alleged proof is that CIA affiliated people have told you this, on the q.t. of course. Can't buy it. The easier motive (for the q.t. information) would be to "cover" real and inexplicabnle UFO events that official intelligence wants kept secret. You don't believe it when a CIA employee tells you that he found a "Roswell file" (I don't believe it either) but you DO believe it when CIA related sources tell you that some important UFO events are staged. How do you rationalize that? I guess that same CIA is also responsible for staged reports from France, Spain, Italy, India, and South Africa. Why I'm sure they even staged the Father Gill episode and we may even someday find a leaked document to that effect. Give me a break.

    Just because we can't figure out the UFO mystery (and I've been at this since 1958) doesn't mean that we must invent foolish and highly improbable scenerios requiring the super skills of our official spooks. That takes us away from the mystery....which is, I suppose, the real motive for most of this nonsense.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • I vote for another high-profile case being a CIA or military operation, the shut down by a purported UFO of the nuclear missiles at Minot (ND) AFB in the 1960s. This was highly likely a test of the responsiveness of the missile staff to an unforeseen "crisis" of unknown origin.

    Yet, this case is continually brought forward as convincing evidence of alien intervention in human activities. The rationale is that because it occurred on a nuclear military base to military personnel (just like Rendlesham) it must have been bona fide case of alien intervention.

    Where have we heard that misguided belief in the infallibility of military personnel as well as inside-out logic before?

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • Oh, and I forgot. You have absolutelty no proof that the Heflin photos are fake. Nothing has ever surfaced (no confederates, no bad photos, no anomolies in the photos themselves) that would, in any court, support the claim that the photos are false. Now WHAT they are photos OF is another matter entirely.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Sunday, February 24, 2013  

  • Dominick:

    See Tony Bragalia's "exegesis" of the Heflin photos here, earlier, and other analyses too.

    That you are too committed to the idea that everybody who's a UFO advocate [ET and otherwise] is above board keeps you from being intellectually objective.

    Some things about UFOs -- many things actually -- are bogus.

    You have got to wrap your head around that if you want to really get at the heart of the UFO mystery.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 25, 2013  

  • You suggest that I'm naive because I can't "wrap my head around" the notion that the "heart of the UFO mystery" is that the CIA and Military have been staging important UFO incidents such as Betty and Barney Hill and Pascagoula. Wow! How could I have been so naive and missed that? And I thought that Phil Klass held the title for inventing the most outlandish UFO explanations. Phil, move over.

    I also have a problem with your assertions, once again, that somehow your previous postings (including Tony's articles) prove that the Heflin photos are fake. They do no such thing. In law, the "best evidence" ultimately proves the case. In Heflin, the best evidence is the photos themselves and the critics have never refuted the only photoanalysis (JSE, 2000)that started with the originals polaroids. When you and your sources explain the "black particulate matter" that shows up in several of the photos including the smoke ring photo, then perhaps we can get somewhere. You are, of course, correct that some things about UFOs are "bogus". Right. And one of those things is the propensity, by both "believers" and skepticas alike, for invented explantions out of whole cloth for anomolies that otherwise defy rational explanation.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Monday, February 25, 2013  

  • Dominick...

    No, I don't think you're naive, not by a long shot.

    I just think you love UFO so much, that sometimes you set aside objectivity.

    I don't know of any serious UFO analyst who thinks Mr. Heflin's photos are of a real craft in the sky.

    The toy-train wheel explanation, which you've surely seen online, makes the case rather sensibly.

    Mr. Bragalia presents a step by step analysis that is hard to dispute.

    Yes, one can dispute it, and you do.

    But I'm in the hoax camp.

    That's all.

    Don't get overworked by the disagreement.

    That's the nature of the UFO topic and some of the events that purportedly represent it.

    If the subject matter was resolved one way or another, we wouldn't be here, debating it, would we?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 25, 2013  

  • Rich, you can't just say that you are "in the hoax camp" without dealing with the photo-analysis that was done in JSE 2000 article. Deal with the finding of particulate matter in the photos. Deal with the difficulty of shooting a toy train wheel without confederates. Deal with the hazing and blueing which suggests strongly that the object filmed was a considerable distance from the camera. Deal with the smoke-ring photo...why fake it at all? No one, including Tony, has effectively dealt with any of this. Now unless we actually deal with these issues, we can't in good debate just simply say (and be taken seriously) that we are "in the hoax camp."

    Did I get "overworked"? Probably!

    BTW, there is one "serious analyist" who does think that the Heflin photos are of some real craft in the sky. Me. I did not start that way. But an editor at the Orange County Register who knew of my interest in UFOs(and where I had previously written an economic policy piece) asked me do an OP/Ed on the Heflin photos back in 2009. And when I dug into the case, and especially into the photoanalysis, I became reasonably convinced that the photos were of some distant craft of the dimensions estimated by Heflin. (That Op/Ed appeared in the OCR on November 8, 2009). Was it ET? Probably not. But I'm reasonably convinced that it was a real flying object and that Heflin did not and, indeed, could not have faked it. And I'll stand by that until someone, anyone, deals effectively with the issues raised above. And that, Rich, (and I'm sure that you are relieved) is my last word on the Heflin photos.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Monday, February 25, 2013  

  • D:

    I think this may call for a posting asking who thinks the Heflin photos are real or something like that.

    This might allow you to confront the other side (the Anti-Heflin crowd), thus clarifying the issue.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 25, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home