UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, June 05, 2013

Leon Davidson connects to Nick Redfern and notes the Roswell/Aztec evidence [in 1962]

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.


Dr. Leon Davidson provided a paper in 1962 entitled An Open Letter to Saucer Researchers. Jim Moseley reprinted that paper in 1967.

He anticipated Nick Redfern’s ongoing theses that the U.S. Government and its military agencies were and are behind flying saucer/UFO sightings.

And, for our purposes, he notes something about a Roswell psy-op that appears in Scully’s book, Behind the Flying Saucers, about Aztec.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the paper:

The man I feel sorriest for in all of this is Major Keyhoe.  He has been ill-used by the CIA and is still being fed stories to relay to the public.  In Flying Saucers - Top Secret pages 18-20, he thinks that he is telling a story of an actual interplanetary saucer sighting when it is obvious that the case he describes is a "dress rehearsal" of a psychological warfare gimmick which "simulates" a flying saucer (to "scare" crews of enemy planes???).

The way in which (on pages 19 and 20) the crewmen were interviewed and made to write reports on what they thought they saw and also shown photographs to match they had seen sounds just like what the CIA would do in a "field test" of a new psychological warfare gimmick.  It is quite similar to the test made in 1950 on college people as described on pages 5 and 6 of Scully's saucer book.

The full paper may be found HERE and/or HERE.

This shows me that the past can be prologue and we should not be quick to eschew older flying saucer accounts or writings about them.

We’ll come back to Dr. Davidson’s insights upcoming.



  • I recall Davidson's Adamski/CIA article, and have it now on CD. I also recall the editor of Flying Saucer Review saying that Davidson was talking twaddle in almost everything he wrote.

    Davidson forgot that "FS Have Landed" was published in the UK BEFORE it was in the US (by a matter of weeks). The involvement of, or pressure from, the CIA was non-existent.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, June 05, 2013  

  • CDA:

    But it is interesting, is it not, that, that Dr. Davidson's conjectures about government involvement in UFO events seems to be borne out by Nick Redfern's impeccable research?

    No one can be 100% correct when it comes to UFOs; the phenomenon doesn't allow such accuracy.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 05, 2013  

  • No one can be 100% correct when it comes to UFOs; the phenomenon doesn't allow such accuracy.


    I loled (sorry)

    You know ONE case where ufologists have been correct and prooving to Science, UFO are ET?

    On the other hand, I can point plethore/multiple of UFO cases where, ufologists rejected Ho (prosaic explanation) and concluded to H1 (fortean explanation), but Ho was true.

    UFOlogy have probably made the stronguest corpus of error of type I ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors ).
    Well, that's ufology...

    If Ufologists have only ONE error of type II made by skeptics (they rejected H1 - ET - when H1 was true),
    please Rich, call me...



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, June 05, 2013  

  • Gilles, mon ami...

    Since Davidson wasn't an ET fanatic, I would think you and CDA would like the guy.

    The ETH is imaginary and fictive, so one can understand why so many UFO people like it.

    But as Bruce Duensing along with you, Lance, CDA, and others intellectualize, there are many other possibilities to explain the phenomenon.

    I don't accept the idea that UFO do NOT exist.

    Strange phenomena have been spotted in the sky and on the ground by sane, credible people.

    Why some sightings are hallucinatory, some cannot so be explained.

    That's what makes them fascinating.

    While the ETH drives irks you, I do not find it that offensive.

    It is a plausible explanation, as David Rudiak puts it.

    But over the years, I've railed against ET visitations for many reasons.

    (One can see my views here or at our RRRGroup blog.)

    That said, I leave open the door to any explanation so long as it is presented intellectually with shards of scientific reasoning -- or "proofs."

    UFOs are a mystery, a fun mystery, nothing more, nothing less.

    Now ufology -- that is a baffling mystery.

    What the hell is ufology?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 05, 2013  

  • As I recall, Davidson was at one time an ET believer, although only a mild one. But at some point he thought he 'saw' what the CIA were up to and began to take a different stance, pointing to the CIA as the prime instigator of UFO sightings; then he went further and made out that even Adamski's contacts were the product of CIA action, and that Adamski was an unwitting stooge of the CIA.

    For a while this sounded plausible (possibly), but it soon became apparent, with other contacts proliferating, that it was totally IMplausible.

    Waveney Girvan (FSR editor) had published the Leslie-Adamski book in the UK and knew the background to it very well. The idea that the CIA inspired it and promoted it was preposterous.

    In later correspondence with me Davidson even claimed the Martian depicted in the Allingham contactee book was a CIA agent in disguise! (No I am NOT kidding, this was his view). Even a Norwegian contact story was attributed to the CIA. Davidson never explained how these CIA guys, clever as they undoubtedly are, managed to impersonate both Venusians and Martians!

    Davidson went way 'over the top' with his absurd CIA ideas, such as with causing the Washington radar sightings, and other cases. He was besotted with their nefarious activities, although he never got quite as far as claiming the Hills abduction was also CIA inspired.

    I am pretty certain Nick Redfern has not gone this far or anything like it.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, June 06, 2013  

  • Yes, Christopher, Leon was out there with his conjectures.

    But you know how much I love (and promote) far-out ideas.

    After all, that's ufology, as Gilles keeps reminding us.

    Nick is much more temperate, indeed.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 06, 2013  

  • On my former blog and in comments on your own material here, I said the Roswell was a nifty heat sink and very similar to the ruse of Axis Intelligence, in spreading the mythos of the "last redoubt" in the mountains of Bavaria, taking Patton and others on a wild goose chase that bought time for their own travel plans. A couple of years ago I suggested to you and I remain fairly suspicious thats James Jesus Angleton knew a great deal about this rat hole. This is the man who had his own black box inside the CIA. Nothing occurred in counter intelligence that he was not aware of. Period. I did a recent article on Robert Bigelow and Howard Hughes and these days, going back to Hughes, it's a cash and carry business now.
    Private contractors working under the aegis of NASA or CIA are not privy to scrutiny and again, this is an old hat trick.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, June 06, 2013  

  • Bruce likes to berate ETH promulgators for not bringing solid evidence to the table, yet when debunking said hypothesis it seems any old load of pabulum will do


    By Blogger Ross Evans, at Thursday, June 06, 2013  

  • I'm not so sure it's this government or that government that may have fabricated certain UFO events. In other words, I don't think the finger can be pointed at "the government," so to speak. I think it's more so-called SAPs, or Special Access Programs, as they are known.

    Also, I think the number of fabricated events is actually quite small. There's evidence to suggest that maybe some of this fabrication was done to gauge how quickly and effectively belief systems and theories can develop and be manipulated.

    Much of this would be of deep interest to psy-war planners and strategists. Plus, using the UFO community as the litmus-test would be profitable, because it's a fairly small community and easy to watch and judge how we respond to events that may have been staged to see how they can be "seeded" in meme style.

    Much of this may not actually have a great deal - at all - to do with hiding the truth about real UFOs, or even classified aircraft of a strange nature.

    UFOs might just been seen as a convenient tool to test out new psy-war themes and determine how easily (or not) people buy into alternative beliefs and ideologies etc.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, June 06, 2013  

  • I don't accept the idea that UFO do NOT exist.

    Hello mon ami and other friends,

    "I/we French UFO-Skeptics" have never or somewhere stated "UFO dont exist".
    But we have enonced that potentialy, the UFO phenomenom could/can be reduced on composite prosaic and conventionnal causes. The big ones are :

    b) Simple misinterpretations,

    c) Misinterpretions or sociopsychological processings more complex - "projective" elaborations or tranformations of conventionnal stimuli in "Flying Saucers" - "FlyingSaucerization" of prosaic stimuli - optical illusions, etc. -

    d) Modified states of consciousness experiences,

    e)Psychopathological experiences,

    f) "Geophysical" phenomenons, rare, bad know or to discover,

    g) Manufactured "secret" crafts (Human then),

    and so on, but conventionnal and prosaic causes.

    So the term Reductionist Composite Theory of the UFO phenomenom (SocioPyschological theory is a synonyme) we use in our Country.

    And that I believe - or see none scientific elements against - that the residual UFO cases are of the same nature (prosaic and conventionnal ones), but only unexplained - a statut then - as any other corpus have "statisticaly" and "logicaly"unexplained residual cases (criminology, cars, plans, domestic engine crashes, conflagrations, etc). In other words, nothing scientific conducing that residual cases have a fortean nature and there is no scientific.

    ETH is here useless (or any fortean theories) until otherwise (scientific evidence) if I want to be a little provokator. ^^

    Hoping it is clearer even if it hard for me in English.



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, June 06, 2013  

  • "The past telescopes into the future." James Jesus Angleton.

    By Blogger The Puppetburglar, at Thursday, June 06, 2013  

  • "Jim Moseley introduced himself to me in 1954 an [sic] we became good friends. He was typical of the young, single, unattached men of mysterious antecedents who became active as saucer publishers during this period."


    By Blogger The Puppetburglar, at Friday, June 07, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home