UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, January 02, 2014

UFO Assets

An ABC broadcast Thursday [1/2/2014], The Assets, is about CIA operative Aldrich Ames’ traitorous proffering of fellow operatives’ names to the Soviet’s KGB.

Britain had its Kim Philby defection from British Intelligence to Soviet Russia, with double-agent machinations by Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess. and Anthony Blunt.

In 1953, Americans Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for Soviet espionage.

There are numerous other spy instances, where men and women privy to secrets of The United States and those of other countries, have offered, for cash or other reasons, a selling out of information that proved detrimental or eye-opening to those who received that information; Edward Snowden comes to mind currently.

The question to be asked is why no one allegedly privy to UFO materials, secret or otherwise, has ever come forward to disclose any of that information, no matter how prosaic or earth-shattering?

Is there no information to impart? Is the matter of UFOs so inane that no one will sacrifice their career or pensions to tell the public what their government or military knows?

If some of those named above thought that communism was a better alternative to democracy, wouldn’t it seem likely that someone in NASA, the CIA, the U.S. Air Force, or NSA et al. would think that information about UFO aliens, if actual, should be disclosed to media and/or the public?

Are there no heroes or traitors within the portals where UFO secrets are held?

And does anyone really believe that governments, especially The United States’ government (military) have really given up pursuing what UFOs are? That is, unless they already know.

It seems odd to me that there are no defections when it comes to UFOs, unless UFOs are of no real consequence, and those who have access to UFO materials know this.

Odd…

RR 

17 Comments:

  • I think those that are focused on the subject assume that it has the same high priority for officialdom as it does for themselves. I think there remains tangential material but nothing as conclusive as conspiracists suspect. The question is if this is so, why ruin your career and reputation for marginal material? It may be very provocative, it may assure those who have serious doubts that the phenomenon is real, but without a smoking gun, nothing would significantly alter anything as to the nature of the mystery, so I don’t believe there's a crying need to torpedo oneself for the sake of what most already acknowledge, that there is something odd occurring. Life as we know it and as the would be discloser would know as well, life would go on without any significant \ revolutionary paradigms being turned over. Its called self interest and being pragmatic from the other side of the coin. There is no positive ID so why bother?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 02, 2014  

  • Bruce and RR:

    You seem to forget that Messrs Friedman, Randle, Rudiak, Bragalia, Timothy Good et al have been telling us ad nauseam that there is indeed a 'smoking gun' in the shape of hardware, bodies and documents. It is truly mind boggling.

    It is just that the so-called whistleblowers are not in a position to know any of this. Hence they cannot tell the world, much though they may like to.

    Of course, there are some who ARE really 'in the know', but nobody else knows who these people are.

    Tim Good and his ilk are still hard at it to force the hand of such people.

    The dam will burst, just like in "The Dambusters".

    Be patient and wait for it!

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 02, 2014  

  • Christopher...

    You seem to miss my nuanced point (and Bruce's); that UFOs are not worthy of disclosure, if there is anything about them in some "secret files."

    That is, no one would jeopardize their career, pension, or life by coming forward with anything about UFOs.

    The topic, any gathered materials, are hardly worth the snags and disruptions to one's life is they chose to tell what was in hidden files.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 02, 2014  

  • In certain aspects, the UFO phenomena has been a God send (no esoteric pun intended) for the military. Better to chalk up flying oddities such as experimental technology out of Area 51 to UFOs.

    UFO Disclosure seems to be Ufology's version of the Book of Revelation...still awaiting the "end of times" when the government will descend from Capitol Hill with the golden tablets of truth for the faithful to behold.

    Rich, what about all of those posers that claim to be government "insiders" or past operatives that have provided snippets of information pertaining to governmental cover-ups of the reality of the UFO/ET phenomena?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, January 02, 2014  

  • Poseurs, indeed, Tim.

    Not one worth paying attention to.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 02, 2014  

  • CDA
    I think the only viable reason for some ( your list) to keep the home fires burning for a earth shaking revelation is that it is their only calling card to raw attention to themselves.

    Aside from Tony's forays into other aspects of the anomalous, they are largely one trick ponies.
    A mythological treasure trove much like the fountain of youth, the Lost Dutchman Mine etc is like a credit card without withdrawal limits.

    The lack of results from whistle blowers or FOIA filings are turned into a conspiratorial scenario simply due to the fact that it keeps their pathetically tiny boats afloat.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 02, 2014  

  • Let's say someone who has worked for the USAF or CIA wants to make public top-secret info about UFOs. Where could he possibly turn to if he has no proofs to back up his claims ? There is not a single medium that would pick up his testimony.

    The only venue available would be a UFO organization, and a subsequent video that would be immediately lost in the youtube ocean, noticed only by the fringe, and by his former employer.
    Nothing would be gained and he'd likely lose everything he has.

    What if the above scenario has already taken place ? How would we know ?
    Unless you have physical proof to go along, coming out with the knowledge is pointless and dangerous.

    By Blogger Yvan D., at Thursday, January 02, 2014  

  • If the person was credible and noted, or had some incontrovertible proof, they'd get the attention of media and the public.

    Edward Snowden has done just that with his NSA material.

    Your comments and thoughts are a little glib I'm afraid.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 02, 2014  

  • RR,

    I'll respectfully disagree with you. Look at the number of folks that were "respectable" establishment types that said "something" was covered up in Roswell. The ones that spoke up got painted with the same paint as the crack-pots who have been in the thick of it from the beginning.

    But on a more personal note, my late father who was an a electrical engineer who worked in space sciences / aerospace in the 60's.

    His specialty was electro-magnetics, designing and building in the mid-60's a degaussing system large enough to demagnetize the OGO space craft. He designed and 'engineered' plasma physics experiment packages with Dr. Frederick L. Scarf [see http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/obituaries/frederick-l-scarf-57-space-plasma-scientist.html]. In 1962 he set up a "home laboratory" and watched / listened to the Starfish Prime atmospheric nuclear test of July 9, 1962. He published the only non-classified paper on that explosion in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

    He had a number of US patents but he also investigated a number of odd things in the Mojave Desert. One of them an apparent landing site in the north end of Death Valley. He also found several sites where 'lights were seen' and later melted aluminum cans were found. Aluminum melts at 1221 F -- much higher than a simple fire might cause. Nor did he report the "visitation" that he and my mother had in 1954 {he worked at the 'Savannah River Facility' at the time). I have a document which I rescued from a damaged hard drive that he had written which presents his recollection of that event.

    He was a life long "establishment" Republican. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose by making a big deal about what he found.

    In his opinion the "investigative" organizations of the time [NICAP and MUFON] were filled with "wingnuts" rather than scientists who believed the "ET hypothesis" was the only hypothesis.

    In his latter years he believed that the mechanism by which the physical UFOs operated by manipulation of what we consider "physical constants" - vacuum permittivity ε0 and Vacuum permeability µ0.

    Unfortunately my father developed dementia after my mother passed away and as far as I know all of his research documents have been lost

    Jaques Vallee has taken the same approach as my father ultimately did. Say what you can say then move on to more profitable exercises.

    regards

    By Blogger gishzida, at Saturday, January 04, 2014  

  • I'm missing your point, gishzida...

    Did your father come forward and get media or public attention?

    Did he traverse the private sector for the public sector?

    That's my point: no one has taken a "patriotic" stance about UFOs, your father, rest his soul, among them.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 04, 2014  

  • The point being:

    It is fine and well to "investigate the unusual" but not to disclose what the establishment wishes to remain hidden. My father held Q clearance in the 50's and Top Secret after that.

    He was of the opinion that the government knew [knows?] something is going on but they do not understand what it is. He seemed to believe that to expose the world to the inexplicable was to sow the seeds of destruction which the 'fear of the unknown' tends to breed.

    He pursued the investigating the things and events he found but realized there was no place available to speak with a reasoned voice of his observations.

    Snowdon, the reveal-er of intelligence secrets, is likely never to see home again. He has sold his future for "a full disclosure" which he naively believes the constitution requires. The "establishment" [the government which seems to pull the strings of elected officialdom] prefers its secrets not be seen. It appears it will prevail in the name of "security" and "preventing terrorist attacks".

    How many "establishment" leaders [politicians and judges] on either side of the political spectrum have come out against the government's use of technology to spy on its own citizens?

    Consider the public reaction that the government knows something that it has no power to prevent or explain.

    You may be correct that "there is no there there" -- that there is no government "cover-up" and there are no hidden files but it still does not explain away things reasonable witnesses, some of whom were military of government officials, have seen or found.

    The many of the "skeptics" of unusual phenomena tend to be just as much rabidly "wingnutty" in their denial of observed facts as "true believers" are obsessed with little grey men from Zeta Reticuli or Reptilian Shape-changers - the "Skeptics" tend to "disallow" observation by trained observers and will not permit reasoned discussion of those observations.

    Their apparent belief is that if one allows the inexplicable to be actual then you "break science as we know it" and that is scary for some -- "the Impossible" is contrary to their version of scientific inquiry which seems to be we already know almost everything. If one observes "the impossible" then they are a liar, a charlatan, or mentally unstable.

    Maybe it is as simple as the government does not want too close of an examination of "lights and sounds" heard in the day and night that might give "OpForces" insight to 'black operations' or our 'technology' [however acquired] or it may be as strange as there is someone who knows something and suppresses anyone seeking "truth" via FUD [wingnuts and 'skeptics'].

    I got the general impression from my father that "serious scientists do not step on the toes of the establishment... it tends to react and when it does react it does so badly". He was also of the belief that the "true believer / wingnuts" were either a direct or indirect put-up job to "disallow" any serious observations to be taken seriously.

    regards



    By Blogger gishzida, at Saturday, January 04, 2014  

  • Most of us here understand that,
    but my call is for a Snowden type who cares more for the truth, whatever it is, than for the security of a career or family.

    I know that's idealistic but history is replete with actions that are not-self-serving but self-sacrificial.

    Need I list some?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 04, 2014  

  • Serious modern science is dependent on government or corporate funding. No cash, no science or scientist.

    Most serious science / engineering types love science but they also love their families. Simple social maths explains why you don't have someone come forward:

    "Truth" is fine and well, but when the potential reaction to "Truth" might come to your door wearing dark suits with bulges, aviator glasses hiding their eyes, and want to sit in your living room and ask you a few questions about your revalations, "truth" does not seem as important.

    My father was one of those who loved making the observed universe understandable... and believed strongly in scientific method... but all he had were a few inexplicable observations:

    lights on a mountainside where there there were no roads,

    a high temperature burn spot with " rectangular landing pad" indentations in a unequal triangular pattern found in a very hot and dry desert location three miles from the nearest road with a high temp 'sand-glass' within the burn.

    A visitation observed by his wife from "something" when he worked at a Q Clearance facility that left what he considered "proof" of her observation of the "something".

    None of these things are "solid enough" to do attempt "full disclosure" since they are easily explained as "observer error", "Hoaxing", and / or "mental instability". I'm not a "trained scientist" so I cannot judge my father's observations as such -- but I know the quality and effort that went into the observations which is enough for me to say "we don't know everything".

    But the truth is that even if someone did spirit away an "alien cadaver" or "a piece of the ship" and "revealed the truth", How long do you think it would be before the government started the white wash?

    Think, how many have you heard call Snowden a traitor or a turncoat spy? By now he realizes how deep in the dew he is... which makes his promise to help the Germans or Brazilians in exchange for asylum understandable.

    Imagine being painted as a traitor not only to your government but possibly to humanity.

    I think we'll just have to be satisfied with the discovery of small pieces until the obvious answer takes shape.

    I would be happy to share with you the document I spoke of... but it, of course, is not proof of anything other than as a curiosity of observations.

    By Blogger gishzida, at Saturday, January 04, 2014  

  • No one expects a person to come forward without the goods.

    I thought my citing the ABC series Assets would indicate that.

    When it comes to anything significant, something more than circumstantial material is needed before one puts oneself in jeopardy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 04, 2014  

  • Here several quotes from documents written by my father from the which I recovered from one of his computer hard drives:

    " The  notoriety  and nonsense associated with  the  name  UFO 
    makes it very difficult to mount a serious effort to analyze  any 
    effects  associated with them in an organized manner.  Regardless 
    of what you have heard on TV about little grey men in spaceships, 
    what is said is all speculation and will probably remain speculation  for  an indefinite period."


    "At  least a part of the agenda [of the alien intelligence] seems to try to  impress  ob servers  that:
    1. The presence is extraterrestrial,
    2.  That  the extraterrestrial  beings are man shaped and
    3. That  the  display theater is a space vehicle.
    I apply the "Lenz's Law of  question able information" which says that if there is a preponderance  of 
    effort to promote the truth of certain information then the opposite must be true."


    "Whatever is the driving force behind the abduction phenomena is a very very powerful intelligence with a mass of deceptive tricks at Its disposal.

    The prime reason for our failure to make any progress in discovering anything about the UFO phenomena has been that in attempts to study it, it has been treated as if it were a natural phenomena and scientific techniques have been applied accordingly in the attempt to extract its secrets, when all along it should have been treated as an intelligence quarry spouting misinformation.

    Whatever it does, it covers its real intent, nature and modus operandi and leaves us guessing at the nature of its identity. We have made human, anthropomorphic assumptions where they do not apply. "

    regards

    By Blogger gishzida, at Saturday, January 04, 2014  

  • It's all about the mindset o' the spy or the whistleblower tho' isn't it Rich.

    If Gary Mckinnon'd been faced with two Pentagon files labelled *Jimmy Saville Rapin' Kids* or *Jimmy Saville Probed by Aliens* I'm pretty certain which o' the two 'e'd've gone for first 'specially if time was limited.

    Snowden himself may even actu'ly be a UFO nut but the files released so far reflect the liberal biased int'rests/neuroses o' Glenn Greenwald an' co [tho' even there their int'rests've now shifted t'usin' reputations built upon selective use o'Snowden's full panoply o' potential revelations t'promotin' their new priority their stake in their very own digital news project].

    We ẹven had Julian Assange hintin' he might be a little UFO nutty briefly bringin' up the subject himself tho' subsequent events suggest it was merely a ploy t'mug the UFO crowd for Wikileaks funds.

    Then there's also the point there's bound to be some among the spies an' whistle blower fraternity who're so committed t'the NO UFOS NO ALIENS NO NUFFINK agenda that like Jacques Vallee's astronomical superior at the French space agency they'd rather destroy all evidence than allow themselves be proved wrong.

    By Blogger alanborky, at Sunday, January 05, 2014  

  • @gishzida

    > Snowdon, the reveal-er of intelligence secrets, is likely never to see home again.

    Don't lean on Snowden so much to make your argument. There are many examples within living memory of people who disclosed high government secrets -- crimes, actually -- yet were not prosecuted for various reasons. Daniel Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times; soldier Tom Glen reported and journalist Seymour Hersh published the facts of Army massacres of Vietnamese civilians; FBI agent Mark Felt provided Woodward and Bernstein with information that brought down a president.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, January 22, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home