Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 02:59 PM Dec 2014

CIA admits to being responsible for at least half of UFO sightings in the 50s and 60s

LANGLEY, Va., Dec. 29 (UPI) -- The CIA noted via Twitter Monday that it was responsible for at least half of UFO sightings in the 1950s and 60s.

"Reports of unusual activity in the skies in the '50s? It was us," the agency tweeted.

The document the tweet links to is a previously confidential report on the testing of the U-2 spy plane at altitudes of over 60,000 feet. It says half or more of supposed UFO sightings were actually times when they were flying the plane at high altitudes, which people didn't realize was possible at the time.

Though they realized people were spotting the plane by cross-referencing the sightings with when and where the plane was flying, the agency couldn't inform the public of that knowledge. The agency says the document explaining that scenario was the most widely read document released this year from their database.

The U-2 is now flown by the United States Air Force, and 104 have been built in total. One was shot down by the Soviet Union in May of 1960 at 70,500 feet during the first attempt to cross the Soviet Union by going from Pakistan's air space to Norway's.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2014/12/29/CIA-admits-to-being-responsible-for-at-least-half-of-UFO-sightings-in-the-50s-and-60s/7451419907308/#ixzz3NPQV55Xz

They other half were aliens.

By the way, now that everyone carries a camera, why are there significantly LESS photos of UFOs?

382 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CIA admits to being responsible for at least half of UFO sightings in the 50s and 60s (Original Post) zappaman Dec 2014 OP
This time they're telling the truth. Octafish Dec 2014 #1
No, but you can make your own photos if you'd like. zappaman Dec 2014 #8
I prefer reading about the real thing - photographs of UFOs. Octafish Dec 2014 #14
I could take a photo like that... Archae Dec 2014 #15
That's what they said to Heflin and about everyone else brave enough to step forward. Octafish Dec 2014 #19
I saw a UFO when I was 16. Avalux Dec 2014 #34
I saw something very similar and it moved the same way. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #150
I had something like that happen years ago. A friend and I were walking into a RKP5637 Dec 2014 #158
Oh brother... zappaman Dec 2014 #22
Now there you go, making sense... Archae Dec 2014 #24
Because one looks like another doesn't make them the same, does it, zappaman? Octafish Dec 2014 #27
So say the gullible. zappaman Dec 2014 #28
LAST CHANCE TO SEND YOUR DOLLAR!! hifiguy Dec 2014 #36
LOL, I will use that graphic! nt Logical Dec 2014 #39
Gullible, like me and Jimmy Carter? Octafish Dec 2014 #40
yes, Carter saw something he could not identify zappaman Dec 2014 #44
So, why the big need to denigrate me for expressing an interest in the subject, zappaman? Octafish Dec 2014 #55
I asked you some questions. zappaman Dec 2014 #58
You wait... greytdemocrat Dec 2014 #61
He NEVER replies to questions. zappaman Dec 2014 #62
Damn you!!!! greytdemocrat Dec 2014 #68
Nice fucking try zappaman Dec 2014 #73
Which is the opposite of what you posted at #44. Octafish Dec 2014 #80
so answer the questions zappaman Dec 2014 #81
Instead of righteous indignation, try reading my response in #55. Octafish Dec 2014 #84
I can read fine, Brad. I can even read your insults, as always. zappaman Dec 2014 #86
You may, but you don't act like you can read. I've answered twice already. Octafish Dec 2014 #112
Sorry Brad but I'm not angry and you're not answering simple yes or no questions. zappaman Dec 2014 #114
So now I have to answer what you want. Octafish Dec 2014 #117
No it's called a discussion. I even answered first to show you how it's gone. zappaman Dec 2014 #122
It requires more than 'yes' or 'no' because there are things I 'don't know.' Octafish Dec 2014 #131
Thanks for the helpful red highlight! zappaman Dec 2014 #135
Just so you know Frank Zappa saw a UFO ZX86 Dec 2014 #70
yes he could not identify it. zappaman Dec 2014 #71
Your namesake betrays you. ZX86 Dec 2014 #75
I saw something once in the air and I couldn't identify it either. zappaman Dec 2014 #77
He saw a UFO. ZX86 Dec 2014 #85
so? zappaman Dec 2014 #87
UFO doesn't mean E.T, dear. BeanMusical Dec 2014 #174
USOs are cooler! zappaman Dec 2014 #183
Carter UFO edhopper Dec 2014 #181
Jimmy Carter interviewed by the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. longship Jan 2015 #352
Carter UFO discussed on DU in 2004... Octafish Jan 2015 #353
The interview is in 2007 and he says it wasn't an alien spacecraft. zappaman Jan 2015 #358
Numbers are hard for you, too? 2004. Octafish Jan 2015 #363
Apparently your reading comprehension needs works... tammywammy Jan 2015 #365
edhopper, zappaman, Longship, TammyWammy... Octafish Jan 2015 #367
Yes we know. zappaman Jan 2015 #369
Sigh, yes I knew it was from 2004. tammywammy Jan 2015 #374
But this ignores the undoubted fact that space aliens are not visiting Earth. longship Jan 2015 #375
So your error smearing me is the only thing worth putting into your DU Journal? Octafish Jan 2015 #377
Actually, that was an accident. tammywammy Jan 2015 #382
Well, on SGU he explicitly said that he never thought it alien. longship Jan 2015 #368
Jury Results (<-- Juror #7) X_Digger Dec 2014 #162
Good jury. zappaman Dec 2014 #178
Two questions Reter Jan 2015 #282
Answers. zappaman Jan 2015 #283
I have never seen someone online as misguided as you are on so many topics...... Logical Dec 2014 #37
Show where I'm wrong, Logical. Octafish Dec 2014 #56
Where'd he say a word about aliens? Scootaloo Dec 2014 #57
OH MY GOOD GOD NuclearDem Dec 2014 #59
Eventually we all ask him that. Codeine Dec 2014 #185
Show where I'm wrong, Codeine. Octafish Dec 2014 #196
More on the Cometa Report here zappaman Dec 2014 #203
Are you Codeine, too? Octafish Dec 2014 #205
Nope, just lil' ol' me! zappaman Dec 2014 #208
Oh. That doesn't explain why you never show where I'm wrong, though. Octafish Dec 2014 #211
You talking to me or Codeine? zappaman Dec 2014 #212
I saw Biggfoot once... edhopper Dec 2014 #197
Did you, really? Octafish Dec 2014 #200
Since you dismiss edhopper Dec 2014 #202
It does say it all. Octafish Dec 2014 #206
Just the prominent ones edhopper Dec 2014 #213
Klass was a great person, as was Menzel. Octafish Dec 2014 #215
I thought you said this. edhopper Dec 2014 #229
He called James Randi a "turd" too. zappaman Dec 2014 #230
I guess that goes for others like edhopper Dec 2014 #231
No. I don't like smear artistes. Octafish Dec 2014 #233
But I didn't call him an idiot, did I? Octafish Dec 2014 #232
No, edhopper Jan 2015 #242
Here's the post. Octafish Jan 2015 #289
Do you think edhopper Jan 2015 #290
Do you think it's OK to smear someone to make a point? Octafish Jan 2015 #291
What was the smear exactly. edhopper Jan 2015 #292
He just wants you to get the his smear right. zappaman Jan 2015 #301
I just wondered how Klass edhopper Jan 2015 #316
Klass pooh poohs UFOs being alien in origin. zappaman Jan 2015 #317
No 'Conspiracy Theorist.' Stanton Friedman is a good man, a scientist. Octafish Jan 2015 #348
I meant edhopper Jan 2015 #349
Disinformation. It adds noise and drowns out the signal. Octafish Jan 2015 #350
I didn't ask you to explain edhopper Jan 2015 #351
No theory to it. That's what U-Chicago wrote about one of its graduates. Octafish Jan 2015 #354
Link? edhopper Jan 2015 #357
So does kooky conspiracy shit. zappaman Jan 2015 #359
Why the need to smear, zappaman? I wrote what the science and witnesses reported. Octafish Jan 2015 #379
Nah, truth is probably 90%. nt valerief Jan 2015 #277
This does not surprise me at all Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #2
Yeah, but.... jberryhill Dec 2014 #4
All UFO reports are not like the one you are describing. ZX86 Dec 2014 #25
There is actually a pretty simple explanation for those cases Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #29
Evidence is available if you chose to look at it. ZX86 Dec 2014 #32
Bullshit. Aliens have not are are not visiting earth. nt Logical Dec 2014 #38
The contributors to the Cometa Report disagree with you. ZX86 Dec 2014 #46
I don't give a shit who they are..... Logical Dec 2014 #47
Calling BS on that claim. ZX86 Dec 2014 #54
Easy enough..... Logical Dec 2014 #72
Massive fail. ZX86 Dec 2014 #79
You are flat out lying....... Logical Dec 2014 #91
So wrong. ZX86 Dec 2014 #98
So you can disavow religious kooks but I must believe UFO kooks? Done with you! Pathetic. nt Logical Dec 2014 #100
Once again, what evidence do you have that these guys are kooks? ZX86 Dec 2014 #106
What evidence do you have that my Harvard graduate is a kook? nt Logical Dec 2014 #111
He isn't part of the COMETA report, so therefore he is a kook! zappaman Dec 2014 #115
OK, I get it now!! nt Logical Dec 2014 #126
Basing scientific concliusions on religous belief. ZX86 Dec 2014 #123
So I did some research and found evidence that there was no General Bruno Lemoine in the Air Force Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #240
Oh FFS! ZX86 Jan 2015 #243
Yes, it is pretty embarrassing for you Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #244
Uh....no it's not. ZX86 Jan 2015 #245
I Googled a few of the names on your list Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #246
You want me to do your debunking for you? ZX86 Jan 2015 #249
Are you saying the only info you can find on these guys...debunks them??? zappaman Jan 2015 #251
If I limit my search to Uri Gellar fanboys..... ZX86 Jan 2015 #254
C'mon, embarass us! zappaman Jan 2015 #256
I've already embarrassed you twice. ZX86 Jan 2015 #264
Hah, fuckin classic. EvilAL Jan 2015 #344
No I just want you to prove the people you are citing actually exist Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #252
They exist. Trust me. ZX86 Jan 2015 #255
You are accusing me of pushing conspiracy theories? Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #257
The guy has nothing. zappaman Jan 2015 #259
Trust you? zappaman Jan 2015 #258
Except a published report ZX86 Jan 2015 #265
So what are Bruno Lemoine's credentials? Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #266
Oh I don't know. ZX86 Jan 2015 #276
When was he a general in the Air Force? Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #278
Sometime during the 20th century I believe. ZX86 Jan 2015 #280
He's not listed by the US Air Force tammywammy Jan 2015 #284
What years specifically? Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #285
Help us out please. zappaman Jan 2015 #250
I have an idea. ZX86 Jan 2015 #261
thanks for the kicks with your bullshit. zappaman Jan 2015 #262
I got your Cometa Report right here edhopper Jan 2015 #267
This is beyond lame. ZX86 Jan 2015 #271
I don't have to back anything up. ZX86 Jan 2015 #269
I'll see your 10 guys and raise you the 1000s who don't think we are being visited by aliens. n/t zappaman Dec 2014 #48
Please name them and their associated reports and studies. ZX86 Dec 2014 #64
Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." zappaman Dec 2014 #66
Sad how easily people believe stuff. nt Logical Dec 2014 #76
you would think guys who think the BFEE controls everything would be thrilled to know the CIA zappaman Dec 2014 #78
Like I said. Analyzed data. ZX86 Dec 2014 #89
LOL! zappaman Dec 2014 #90
I'm no professor. I defer to experts who have analyzed data. ZX86 Dec 2014 #101
OK Einstein..... Logical Dec 2014 #92
I never claimed to have proof. ZX86 Dec 2014 #108
It has been studied. zappaman Dec 2014 #109
Well then name the study. ZX86 Dec 2014 #128
The FAA does not name their studies Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #134
If the study doesn't have a name. ZX86 Dec 2014 #141
So what scientific data exists to verify these accounts? Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #146
Eyewitness testimony is used all the time scientific study. ZX86 Dec 2014 #151
No, science is not based exclusively on eyewitness accounts Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #153
SETI is fine. All else is a waste. nt Logical Dec 2014 #113
UFOs are studied quite extensively Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #119
You do realize that Sagan focused much of his research on the search for extra-terrestrial life? Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #103
Carl Sagan did not analyze UFO data. ZX86 Dec 2014 #121
You apparently have not read much Sagan Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #124
What part of "analyzed data" don't you understand. ZX86 Dec 2014 #133
Please explain to me how the people on your list are more reputable than Sagan Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #139
The members of the Cometa Report collected data, ZX86 Dec 2014 #149
You clearly know nothing about Sagan Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #152
How many times do I have to repeat this. ZX86 Dec 2014 #156
Have you read The Demon Haunted World? Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #157
How many eyewitnesses did he interview? ZX86 Dec 2014 #159
I ask again, have you read the book? Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #160
No I have not but familiar with the premise. ZX86 Dec 2014 #165
The point is you are claiming the book lacks data when you don't even know what is in it Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #177
If you are claiming Sagan has done UFO research. ZX86 Dec 2014 #184
Why are your guys on the list so much more impressive? zappaman Dec 2014 #189
I already linked you to the book, read it Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #225
Good luck. zappaman Dec 2014 #226
Yeah, I am pretty convinced he does not know anything about the people on his list Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #227
Apparently just being a general or admiral is impressive enough zappaman Dec 2014 #228
Try Googling General Bruno Lemoine Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #236
I tried with 3 or 4 of them and gave up zappaman Jan 2015 #237
I found a Wikipedia page that is supposed to list all the Generals who served in the US Air Force Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #238
Sagan obviously doesn't know shit about UFOs like these guys do! zappaman Jan 2015 #239
It appears that not only Wikipedia forgot to mention him, the Air Force did as well Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #241
When my dad, an Air Force Lt. Col., was stationed at Hickam AFB in Hawaii, panader0 Jan 2015 #318
Is this him? Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #319
In the time you to took to write all that ZX86 Jan 2015 #247
Sagan based his belief on decades of research Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #248
How many times do I have to repeat this. ZX86 Jan 2015 #253
If you don't want to read his book then you can read his Wikipedia entry Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #260
I get the feeling someone doesn't like to read. zappaman Jan 2015 #263
From your own link... ZX86 Jan 2015 #272
The link actually says more than just that and the book says even more yet Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #273
I've already told you why. ZX86 Jan 2015 #274
You do realize the COMETA report is not a scientific report don't you? Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #279
Neither is the Colbert Report. ZX86 Jan 2015 #281
Yes, there is a lot of comic value in it I will concede that point Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #286
What's funny about it. ZX86 Jan 2015 #294
You should know, you are the one who compared it to the Colbert Report Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #296
And you completely abandoned your argument. ZX86 Jan 2015 #300
I think that pointing out there is no background info on any of your sources... Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #303
It's almost sad. zappaman Jan 2015 #305
It is a public report that has existed for years. ZX86 Jan 2015 #307
There are lots of unscientific reports on many issues Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #310
Agreed, the COMETA report is funny. zappaman Jan 2015 #287
Why? ZX86 Jan 2015 #293
Because a whole bunch of seemingly fake people with fake credentials signed it. zappaman Jan 2015 #295
Either they are fake or not. ZX86 Jan 2015 #297
Uh huh zappaman Jan 2015 #298
The report shows who they are. ZX86 Jan 2015 #306
No it doesn't. zappaman Jan 2015 #313
Who said I can't find info on them? ZX86 Jan 2015 #324
yes, we saw the names. zappaman Jan 2015 #328
More sillliness zappaman Jan 2015 #299
So you've finally accepted the fact that the report is legitimate ZX86 Jan 2015 #302
Nope. zappaman Jan 2015 #304
No. It's on you to prove they are untrustworthy. ZX86 Jan 2015 #309
I think I learned a new debate tactic from you Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #311
Admiral Mike Hunt agress with General Douchebag. zappaman Jan 2015 #314
Lame. Lame. Lame. ZX86 Jan 2015 #329
Yes there is a published report from General Douchebag Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #336
How about you try to show who they are? zappaman Jan 2015 #312
If John Alexander is so loony why did you post his opinions? ZX86 Jan 2015 #321
Sorry you don't get why. zappaman Jan 2015 #323
So your position is John Alexander is a loony ZX86 Jan 2015 #333
Yes, he is a loony. zappaman Jan 2015 #337
You didn't think that when you orignally posted his nonsense. ZX86 Jan 2015 #342
Actually that's why I posted it! zappaman Jan 2015 #343
"Yeah...that's why I posted it" ZX86 Jan 2015 #345
I'll try to keep things simpler for you next time. zappaman Jan 2015 #346
LOL, you don't get it..... Logical Dec 2014 #74
There were many people with impressive credentials telling us Saddam had WMDs as well Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #51
Do you have any evidence they are not trustworthy? ZX86 Dec 2014 #95
Those making the claims need to convince me that they are trustworthy Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #96
See post #105 zappaman Dec 2014 #107
The COMETA Report is a joke. zappaman Dec 2014 #105
John Alexander? Seriously? You're quoting John Alexander??? ZX86 Dec 2014 #154
Yes the report was too kooky for the kooks! zappaman Dec 2014 #168
Please explain what is "kooky" about the report. ZX86 Dec 2014 #169
Sure. zappaman Dec 2014 #172
What? You want their college transcripts? ZX86 Dec 2014 #187
No, I would like to know their expertise. zappaman Dec 2014 #188
In what world are generals and admirals not impressive. ZX86 Dec 2014 #195
LOL! zappaman Dec 2014 #199
Guy's M.O. is to get you to waste your time. Octafish Dec 2014 #193
well then perhaps you can tell me the expertise of the guys who signed off on the Cometa Report? zappaman Dec 2014 #194
Time Waster. Octafish Dec 2014 #198
so you don't know either. zappaman Dec 2014 #201
So what? I never claimed I did. Octafish Dec 2014 #207
"So what?" zappaman Dec 2014 #209
Yes, we are--but we are undocumented, so we try to keep a low profile. nt tblue37 Dec 2014 #170
Good one! Nt Logical Dec 2014 #171
Obviously, the aliens use their cloaking device to hide from the ubiquitous cameras. arcane1 Dec 2014 #3
Since they can't be trusted... 2naSalit Dec 2014 #5
The UFO phenomenon is intriguing not because of sightings explained. ZX86 Dec 2014 #6
Maybe I should have said "good" ones not "obviously faked" bullshit ones. zappaman Dec 2014 #7
Where are the UFO's? ZX86 Dec 2014 #11
Believe me, there are many scientists who would love to write a peer reviewed article Bjorn Against Dec 2014 #31
The search for life in space is not the study of UFO's. ZX86 Dec 2014 #42
Damn you BFEE!!!... SidDithers Dec 2014 #9
Because making fun of those exposing America's fascist enemies is its own reward. Octafish Dec 2014 #49
I've never seen Sid or anyone else defending the Bushes. Don't you ever get tired of that smear? zappaman Dec 2014 #53
I've been a DUer longer than most. Don't know 'Brad.' Octafish Dec 2014 #60
Ha! No my friend. zappaman Dec 2014 #65
Not odd at all, SOP for some here. Rex Dec 2014 #164
What Exactly Was Carl Sagan Working on with the U.S. Military? Octafish Dec 2014 #182
What's your opinion? zappaman Dec 2014 #190
Remember Felix Moncla and Robert Wilson... Octafish Dec 2014 #204
Speaking of "wasting time" zappaman Dec 2014 #210
Remember Thomas Mantell... Octafish Dec 2014 #214
Was he a friend of Carl Sagan's? zappaman Dec 2014 #216
Remember Frederick Valentich... Octafish Dec 2014 #217
What's the word when you post things that have nothing to do with the question? zappaman Dec 2014 #218
Time Waster. Octafish Dec 2014 #219
No, the OP is about the CIA admitting to being responsible for many UFO sightings. zappaman Dec 2014 #220
If so, why your need to denigrate my responses? Octafish Dec 2014 #221
Oh right, I forgot no one can ever disagree with your "opinions" zappaman Dec 2014 #222
No. The forum you linked to said that. Octafish Dec 2014 #223
Uh huh. zappaman Dec 2014 #224
I also posted the official CIA history on UFOs in post #131. Octafish Dec 2014 #234
Yes. zappaman Dec 2014 #235
OMG!!!! greytdemocrat Dec 2014 #63
could very well be true G_j Dec 2014 #10
I don't know what's more terrifying... JaneyVee Dec 2014 #12
There's gotta be life somewhere. zappaman Dec 2014 #13
We're likely not alone. ZX86 Dec 2014 #17
A line from Shakespeare's "King Lear" comes to mind: "Like flies to wanton boys are KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #116
The old Soviet Union actually encouraged UFO stories... Archae Dec 2014 #16
That is a beautiful photo. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #21
Not exactly. Octafish Jan 2015 #355
!!! MillennialDem Dec 2014 #18
ONLY HALF, SEE? Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #20
It's not an issue of belief. ZX86 Dec 2014 #30
Look, I believe that life is probably pretty abundant in the Universe. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #83
Then how can you explain this? zappaman Dec 2014 #88
Oh, I didn't say that the quantum overmind doesn't communicate via the trans-psychedelic aethernet Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #94
I agree with the guy who posted the video zappaman Dec 2014 #102
I saw a couple classic shows that year, for sure. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #140
Honestly I miss the JG Band even more zappaman Dec 2014 #142
I hear that. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #155
The rest, in a shocking twist, were the fault of the Agricultural Research Service. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #191
And they are responsible for 100% of the anal probing incidents during that time. Kaleva Dec 2014 #23
They waited to start on the anal probings until Bush was President. See the KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #120
"cia" was the Sanskrit word for marsh gas 1step Dec 2014 #26
That's just what they want us to think. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #33
LOL, I knew it! Thanks for posting. Many here will be SHOCKED! nt Logical Dec 2014 #35
Not true about cell phones Boreal Dec 2014 #41
Actually it is true zappaman Dec 2014 #45
No, it is not true Boreal Dec 2014 #50
Good idea! zappaman Dec 2014 #52
A wikipedia entry Boreal Dec 2014 #67
Who's debunking? zappaman Dec 2014 #69
Who said anything about aliens? Boreal Dec 2014 #145
One more year and I get my very own starship. Rex Dec 2014 #43
. Takket Dec 2014 #82
I find it incredulous that anyone could believe that humans are the only intelligent panader0 Dec 2014 #93
"Human intelligence," like its close sibiling "military intelligence," is almost KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #127
Now I have to go get some Eudora Welty books. Thanks! panader0 Dec 2014 #129
While you're at it, Flannery O'Connor would also repay your efforts. Also, the 19th-century KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #132
If you can believe it, I just ordered Welty on Amazon (?) and they said "people who ordered panader0 Dec 2014 #137
You will not be sorry. I'd also like to put in a pitch for one of my old KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #143
I guess they want some attention: LOOK AT ME! BootinUp Dec 2014 #97
Carl Sagan's name has been invoked here. Carl was definitely a skeptic; but........ LongTomH Dec 2014 #99
By me and I don't if others did, haven't had time to read them all BootinUp Dec 2014 #110
The point I tried to make is, that he did engage in a polite dialogue. LongTomH Dec 2014 #118
Polite dialogue, what's that? Quantess Dec 2014 #173
The point of this thread was to waste time as someone else pointed out. Rex Jan 2015 #370
Thanks for the kick.... zappaman Jan 2015 #371
Hey I can waste your time too, not like it is hard. Rex Jan 2015 #372
!!! zappaman Jan 2015 #373
The Truth is out there.... yuiyoshida Dec 2014 #104
A few of the problems we have, regarding the chance in being visited by other beings. BlueJazz Dec 2014 #125
These are some excellent points you make (from the Skeptical side of KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #138
I forget who said this but I thought it was pretty cool. > BlueJazz Dec 2014 #147
Awesome stuff. In return I'll leave you with a passage from Dickens' "Great Expectations," where KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #148
Well, this got weird in no time at all. NuclearDem Dec 2014 #130
I thought people would be thrilled that the CIA copped to this! zappaman Dec 2014 #136
Makes sense, but the other half were actual alien spacecraft sightings. Kablooie Dec 2014 #144
Best thread of 2015. And it's not even 2015 yet Number23 Dec 2014 #161
! zappaman Dec 2014 #167
Creative Speculation not good enough for you? MrMickeysMom Dec 2014 #163
"Baits" not "bates". zappaman Dec 2014 #166
You're the master! MrMickeysMom Dec 2014 #179
Thanks! zappaman Dec 2014 #180
Frankly, at this point, I don't believe a damn thing the CIA is saying about any subject. BeanMusical Dec 2014 #175
THANKS MFM008 Dec 2014 #176
And we should believe the Boy Who Cried "CIA!" now because...? WinkyDink Dec 2014 #186
Not UFOs - Fuckin’ Foo Fighters! frogmarch Dec 2014 #192
K&R for the truth Rex Jan 2015 #268
I think CIA agents should do their jobs and stop going on "UFO sightings" Jeffersons Ghost Jan 2015 #270
When I read that there were more exo-planets than people on earth JonLP24 Jan 2015 #275
I did not realise that you had a female face to your name! akbacchus_BC Jan 2015 #288
The Phoenix lights where everyone sees what is clearly flares, is not the part randys1 Jan 2015 #308
Likely man made. zappaman Jan 2015 #315
Every eye witness described it as the size of a football field or bigger, as I recall randys1 Jan 2015 #322
Good explanation here... zappaman Jan 2015 #326
different lights, two separate events occurred that night randys1 Jan 2015 #330
Not sure what you are referencing... zappaman Jan 2015 #331
You would need to watch one of the specials about the night, before the 10PM mass sighting of randys1 Jan 2015 #332
What year was this? n/t zappaman Jan 2015 #334
The same night of the PHoenix lights, I have seen no less than 3 different one hour shows on tv randys1 Jan 2015 #335
I think that was addressed in the article I linked to? zappaman Jan 2015 #338
Is your article about 2011? randys1 Jan 2015 #339
Thats why I was asking the year! zappaman Jan 2015 #340
Yeah, that year, sorry...So basically they didnt see what they said they saw, some of them very randys1 Jan 2015 #341
This explanation does not hold water. Not a drop. ZX86 Jan 2015 #356
I see you've given up trying to show us who the guys who signed zappaman Jan 2015 #360
No. I never tried. ZX86 Jan 2015 #361
Sorry you don't even have the confidence to try. n/t zappaman Jan 2015 #362
When do they "admit to being responsible" for murder, torture, and other assorted crimes? Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #320
Don't hold yer breath. n/t zappaman Jan 2015 #325
I won't...unless the humanitarians at CIA waterboard me. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #327
I don't know if there are alien crafts or not Marrah_G Jan 2015 #347
The Soviets were the other half Taitertots Jan 2015 #364
More like 25 percent. zappaman Jan 2015 #366
Betty and Barney Hill sure believed in UFOs. trueblue2007 Jan 2015 #376
Damn--I was on the mandatory holiday leave for the agency I work for, and I miss this thread? msanthrope Jan 2015 #378
"Agency" eh? zappaman Jan 2015 #380
I've been found out.....you see, my pro-Democratic President stance on a pro-Democratic msanthrope Jan 2015 #381

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
1. This time they're telling the truth.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 03:15 PM
Dec 2014

Honest.

Did the tweet mention how UFO-interest groups that evolved from such sightings were manipulated by the Agency?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
14. I prefer reading about the real thing - photographs of UFOs.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 05:41 PM
Dec 2014

Here's one of the better examples, a composite of three Polaroid images taken in 1965 by the late Rex Heflin, an employee of Orange County, California, while on official business:



Heflin never said he took a picture of an alien craft, just that he saw something he could not explain nearby. In addition to the photos, his radio conked out when the object was nearby, then worked OK again after it departed. Here's a close up of one image used for the panorama (note the dust standing perpendicularly, directly underneath the object):



While I do not know what these images actually represent, they are what Mr. Heflin and many other good, honest people have reported, a UFO: something they cannot identify in flight. Most, like Mr. Heflin, did not say that what they photographed came from outer space, another dimension or time, an animate being or inanimate object, or something else that is outside our understanding. Most simply stated they did not know what they saw or photographed. More examples, submitted for those interested learning more:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html

Archae

(46,335 posts)
15. I could take a photo like that...
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 05:47 PM
Dec 2014

UFO debunkers showed that the "object" was a pie or cake pan thrown into the air.

Like was said above, why with the number of cameras on cell phones and such, are the numbers of clear UFO pictures dropping like a rock?

To use Occam's razor, makes it simple.

Mistakes and fakes.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
19. That's what they said to Heflin and about everyone else brave enough to step forward.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 06:01 PM
Dec 2014

When they ran Heflin's Polaroids through the ringer, though, they are what Mr. Heflin said they were -- of an Unidentified Flying Object.

Ann Druffel has written an excellent report on Mr. Heflin and the images: http://www.anndruffel.com/articles/ufo/goodbyerexheflin.htm

PS: I look forward to you sharing your series of photos like Heflin's.

Avalux

(35,015 posts)
34. I saw a UFO when I was 16.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:13 PM
Dec 2014

It was before mobile phones but quite honestly, I was so freaked out I doubt if I could have been able to take a pic.

Rural area of PA, dark, closest airport 120 miles. Whatever I saw, it was triangular with 3 lights (one at each point) and was 'closer' to me than any airplane I had ever seen. It remained motionless for about 30 seconds after I noticed it, then it zig-zagged 4 times and disappeared into thin air.

I knew it wasn't a plane but I have no glossy evidence, just my story.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
150. I saw something very similar and it moved the same way.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:37 PM
Dec 2014

It was very fast. The lights were green on the one I saw. I'll never forget it. It was a very interesting experience. I didn't have a cell phone at the time. To be quite honest, if I had reached for a cell phone, turned it on, and tried to get a picture, I would not have had time. It was there and gone so fast that I could not have gotten a picture.

RKP5637

(67,111 posts)
158. I had something like that happen years ago. A friend and I were walking into a
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 11:37 PM
Dec 2014

building, it was around 10:30 PM, there were only the lights of the building so the sky was clear from ambient light for the most part. Something did a zigzag way up in the air, about the visual size of a large star. It did like a "J" zigzag hook of sorts and disappeared. I attributed it to ball lightening or something, but is was really weird. I've often wondered what it was. I've never seen anything like that again. We were near government installations, so it might have been something being tested. It only lasted about 15 seconds and it was extremely fast.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
22. Oh brother...
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 06:09 PM
Dec 2014



Blowup of the Heflin UFO


Toy train wheel
"Did people in the area know about the photos before they were published in the local newspaper?

Yes they did. And one such person is Mr. Edward Riddle. Ed Riddle was a professional that was employed as a senior-level technical writer, including for a leading Menlo Park, California electronics technologies company. But in the summer of 1965 Riddle was a young man that was employed by the local telephone company. In the lunch-room, Riddle remembers, a fellow that Riddle described as being "in a jolly mood" had come into the company lunch room and had brought with him what Riddle would soon later clearly and instantly recognize as the "Heflin UFO photos."

Riddle recounts that the man had told him that "his neighbor he knew had rigged up a toy train wheel and some monofilament fishing line, hung them out of his truck window, shot them and would maybe just take them to the paper for some fun."

Read more: http://uforesearchnetwork.proboards.com/thread/1408/classic-photos-exposed-fakes#ixzz3NQC5cl7z

For those interested learning more about these fake UFO photos:

http://uforesearchnetwork.proboards.com/thread/1408/classic-photos-exposed-fakes

http://www.getalien.com/1965-heflin-ufo-photo-probably-fake/

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
27. Because one looks like another doesn't make them the same, does it, zappaman?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 06:25 PM
Dec 2014

Nor do your two sources come close to proving anything. What they do show is the lengths some people will go to add plausible deniability to something.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
28. So say the gullible.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 06:30 PM
Dec 2014


Not shocked that you would fall for this since you fall for everything else...including crop circles.

"As for Crop Circles, no where did I post who or what created them. As far as I know, no one knows."


"Doubtful whether a pair of drunken RAF noncoms could figure this one out. "


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024262028#post20

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
40. Gullible, like me and Jimmy Carter?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:19 PM
Dec 2014
Jimmy Carter reports UFO, Sept. 18, 1973

By ANDREW GLASS

www.politico.com
9-18-13

On this day in 1973, Jimmy Carter filed a report with unofficial investigators of aerial phenomena asserting that he had witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969. Carter, who at the time was Georgia’s governor, went on in 1977 to become the nation’s 39th president.

Although it was an unexplained event, Carter consistently has said that his knowledge of physics — as an Annapolis graduate, he had been assigned to the U.S. Navy’s nuclear submarine program — ruled out the possibility that he had witnessed an alien spacecraft.

The sighting was said to have occurred during his visit to the Lions Club in Leary, Ga., although the date remains in dispute.

In his report, Carter wrote that the object was self-luminous, about as bright as the full moon. He said it had been witnessed by some 10 persons and had been visible for about 10 minutes.

As he put it: “(We were) standing outside of a little restaurant, I believe, a high school lunchroom, and a kind of green light appeared in the western sky. This was right after sundown. It got brighter and brighter. And then it eventually disappeared. It didn’t have any solid substance to it, it was just a very peculiar looking light. None of us could understand what it was.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/this-day-in-politics-96937.html

FTR: No where have I written I knew what UFOs are or who makes the crop circles. How does that make me gullible, zappaman? And what does that make you for continuing to imply I do?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
44. yes, Carter saw something he could not identify
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:29 PM
Dec 2014

do you think it was alien in origin?
do you think aliens are visiting us and making crop circles?
do you think there is an alien spacecraft at Area 51 and bodies?

I look forward to your answers cuz we here at DU know you love to answer questions posted to you!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
55. So, why the big need to denigrate me for expressing an interest in the subject, zappaman?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:55 PM
Dec 2014

Some UFOs represent a phenomenon of unknown origin.

The CIA has had an interest in them from the beginnings of the Agency. Here's an excellent overview about the CIA and UFOs going over what your tweet said -- about 20 years ago:



The CIA's UFO History

by Mark Rodeghier
Scientific Director, J Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies

After the Cold War ended, the culture of secrecy and the operational style of the CIA began to change. Its director appeared on a radio talk show, and it became possible for citizens to pressure the CIA in ways unheard of during that earlier era. Ufology has been a beneficiary of these changes.

In late 1993, inquiries from several UFO researchers led CIA Director R. James Woolsey to order a review of all CIA files on UFOs. This agency-wide search occurred in 1994 and centralized the CIA’s UFO files. Taking advantage of this opportunity, government historian Gerald K. Haines reviewed the documents, conducted interviews, and wrote a study examining the CIA’s interest and involvement in UFO investigation and government UFO policy from 1947 until 1990.

Haines’s study was published in Studies in Intelligence, a classified journal published quarterly for the intelligence community. The article, "CIA’s Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947–90," appeared in the first semiannual unclassified edition for 1997, on pages 67–84. It can be found at http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclas/ufo.html (dead link, also missing from Internet Archive)

This is a rather important document because it is the first time that a government agency has written a review of its involvement with UFOs. Although the study had been available at least since June when I downloaded it from the CIA Web site, it did not receive widespread publicity until early August. But when the press learned about the Haines study, the attention was dramatic. The story was carried in most large newspapers, on the NBC Nightly News, and many other media outlets. A typical headline from the Chicago Sun-Times reads, "CIA feared UFO hysteria." Several columnists used the CIA history as an opportunity to bash the CIA and secrecy in government, as exemplified by the column by David Wise (author of The Politics of Lying: Government Deception, Secrecy, and Power) in the New York Times "Big Lies and Little Green Men."

The media generally focused on two aspects of the Haines article. In a brief section entitled "CIA’s U–2 and OXCART as UFOs," Haines claims that many UFO sightings in the late 1950s and 1960s were actually misidentified secret American spy planes. Moreover, he alleges that the Air Force’s Project Blue Book was in on this cover-up, purposely misled the public, and falsified (Haines didn’t use that word but that is plainly what the Air Force would be doing) UFO explanations. This is important news if true, and the media rightly played up this angle.

Note that the CIA is not accused of deception by Haines; rather, it is the Air Force that willingly concocted the bogus explanations. Reporters asked the Air Force for comment, and on August 4, Brigadier General Ronald Sconyers told the press, "I cannot confirm or deny that we lied. The Air Force is committed to providing accurate and timely information within the confines of national security."

SNIP...

Not believing Wilson’s statements, ufologists sued the CIA for records and won the release of about 800 pages in December of 1978. Since the CIA had, unwisely, been denying its inolvement in UFO matters, the media was surprised to learn how many documents were held by the agency. The New York Times claimed as a result that the CIA was probably secretly involved in the study of UFOs.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cufos.org/iur_article3.html



PS: Do people look forward to what you have to post, too?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
58. I asked you some questions.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:57 PM
Dec 2014

Instead of whining that you are being "denigrated" (not true) why not simply answer?
Shouldn't take more than a minute...

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
62. He NEVER replies to questions.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:05 PM
Dec 2014

He'll just post some links to some other stuff he wrote which has nothing to do with the question asked.

And he...hey wait a second...your name is greytdemocrat???
Nice try dude.

Over the last several years , researchers have unearthed plenty of evidence that:

The United States made one or more agreements with a species described as the tall Greys, and has agreed not to interfere with alien operational plans in trade for technology. Agreements made In 1934, 1964, and 1972.

The large Greys use smaller cloned big-headed Greys to perform abduction and examination work. It is these Greys that abductees see most of the time.

The Grey clones are also performing biological work which necessitates the termination of various species on the surface of the Earth, which is not governed or protected under the treaty made with the US government. Underground installations are the only sovereign areas under the treaty.

Biological products are gathered for other genetic work, which includes cloning, DNA enrichment, and cross-breeding with human beings.

Researchers will recall that the disk that crashed in 1947 at Roswell, New Mexico had several reptilian species on board, as well as the body parts and clothing of several Army-Air Force officers.


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/esp_vida_alien_18za.htm

greytdemocrat

(3,299 posts)
68. Damn you!!!!
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:12 PM
Dec 2014

I thought I had covered my tracks
better than a BFEE agent at a Kennedy
assassination symposium!!!!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
80. Which is the opposite of what you posted at #44.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:29 PM
Dec 2014
44. yes, Carter saw something he could not identify

do you think it was alien in origin?
do you think aliens are visiting us and making crop circles?
do you think there is an alien spacecraft at Area 51 and bodies?

I look forward to your answers cuz we here at DU know you love to answer questions posted to you!

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
81. so answer the questions
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:30 PM
Dec 2014

man, what are you so afraid of?


here I'll go first

do you think it was alien in origin?
NO
do you think aliens are visiting us and making crop circles?
NO
do you think there is an alien spacecraft at Area 51 and bodies?
NO

see how easy it is my friend?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
84. Instead of righteous indignation, try reading my response in #55.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:36 PM
Dec 2014

"Some UFOs represent a phenomenon of unknown origin."

Do you have a problem with text, zappaman? Do you need me to use smaller words?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
86. I can read fine, Brad. I can even read your insults, as always.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:38 PM
Dec 2014

Do you have a problem not answering simple questions?

do you think it was alien in origin?
do you think aliens are visiting us and making crop circles?
do you think there is an alien spacecraft at Area 51 and bodies?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
112. You may, but you don't act like you can read. I've answered twice already.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:30 PM
Dec 2014

Hope the third time's a charm:

Look in response 44 and response 55: "Some UFOs represent a phenomenon of unknown origin."

If it makes you angry when I remind you missed or misread that, that's a different thing.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
114. Sorry Brad but I'm not angry and you're not answering simple yes or no questions.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:33 PM
Dec 2014

But I guess that goes to show you have nothing but smears and insults.
In other words, the usual.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
122. No it's called a discussion. I even answered first to show you how it's gone.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:41 PM
Dec 2014

Baby steps.
Try again?
All it requires is a yes or no.

do you think it(the UFO Carter saw) was alien in origin?

do you think aliens are visiting us and making crop circles?

do you think there is an alien spacecraft at Area 51 and bodies?

Give it a try!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
131. It requires more than 'yes' or 'no' because there are things I 'don't know.'
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:00 PM
Dec 2014

do you think it(the UFO Carter saw) was alien in origin? don't know

do you think aliens are visiting us and making crop circles? don't know

do you think there is an alien spacecraft at Area 51 and bodies? don't know

Something else that requires more than Yes, No, I don't know is what I do know about UFOs:

"Some UFOs represent a phenomenon of unknown origin."

In fact, the CIA considered the subject worthy of study:



CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90

A Die-Hard Issue

Gerald K. Haines
Central Intelligence Agency

An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have at least heard or read something about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percent believe they are real. (1) Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO. UFOlogists--a neologism for UFO buffs--and private UFO organizations are found throughout the United States. Many are convinced that the US Government, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy and coverup of the issue. The idea that CIA has secretly concealed its research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the modern UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s. (2)

In late 1993, after being pressured by UFOlogists for the release of additional CIA information on UFOs, (3) DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this study traces CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s to 1990. It chronologically examines the Agency's efforts to solve the mystery of UFOs, its programs that had an impact on UFO sightings, and its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in the entire UFO issue. What emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena.



Background

The emergence in 1947 of the Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union also saw the first wave of UFO sightings. The first report of a "flying saucer" over the United States came on 24 June 1947, when Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot and reputable businessman, while looking for a downed plane sighted nine disk-shaped objects near Mt. Rainier, Washington, traveling at an estimated speed of over 1,000 mph. Arnold's report was followed by a flood of additional sightings, including reports from military and civilian pilots and air traffic controllers all over the United States. (4) In 1948, Air Force Gen. Nathan Twining, head of the Air Technical Service Command, established Project SIGN (initially named Project SAUCER) to collect, collate, evaluate, and distribute within the government all information relating to such sightings, on the premise that UFOs might be real and of national security concern. (5)

The Technical Intelligence Division of the Air Material Command (AMC) at Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) in Dayton, Ohio, assumed control of Project SIGN and began its work on 23 January 1948. Although at first fearful that the objects might be Soviet secret weapons, the Air Force soon concluded that UFOs were real but easily explained and not extraordinary. The Air Force report found that almost all sightings stemmed from one or more of three causes: mass hysteria and hallucination, hoax, or misinterpretation of known objects. Nevertheless, the report recommended continued military intelligence control over the investigation of all sightings and did not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial phenomena. (6)

Amid mounting UFO sightings, the Air Force continued to collect and evaluate UFO data in the late 1940s under a new project, GRUDGE, which tried to alleviate public anxiety over UFOs via a public relations campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing unusual or extraordinary. UFO sightings were explained as balloons, conventional aircraft, planets, meteors, optical illusions, solar reflections, or even "large hailstones." GRUDGE officials found no evidence in UFO sightings of advanced foreign weapons design or development, and they concluded that UFOs did not threaten US security. They recommended that the project be reduced in scope because the very existence of Air Force official interest encouraged people to believe in UFOs and contributed to a "war hysteria" atmosphere. On 27 December 1949, the Air Force announced the project's termination. (7)

With increased Cold War tensions, the Korean war, and continued UFO sightings, USAF Director of Intelligence Maj. Gen. Charles P. Cabell ordered a new UFO project in 1952. Project BLUE BOOK became the major Air Force effort to study the UFO phenomenon throughout the 1950s and 1960s. (8) The task of identifying and explaining UFOs continued to fall on the Air Material Command at Wright-Patterson. With a small staff, the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) tried to persuade the public that UFOs were not extraordinary. (9) Projects SIGN, GRUDGE, and BLUE BOOK set the tone for the official US Government position regarding UFOs for the next 30 years.

[Top of page]


Early CIA Concerns, 1947-52

CIA closely monitored the Air Force effort, aware of the mounting number of sightings and increasingly concerned that UFOs might pose a potential security threat. (10) Given the distribution of the sightings, CIA officials in 1952 questioned whether they might reflect "midsummer madness.'' (11) Agency officials accepted the Air Force's conclusions about UFO reports, although they concluded that "since there is a remote possibility that they may be interplanetary aircraft, it is necessary to investigate each sighting." (12)

A massive buildup of sightings over the United States in 1952, especially in July, alarmed the Truman administration. On 19 and 20 July, radar scopes at Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base tracked mysterious blips. On 27 July, the blips reappeared. The Air Force scrambled interceptor aircraft to investigate, but they found nothing. The incidents, however, caused headlines across the country. The White House wanted to know what was happening, and the Air Force quickly offered the explanation that the radar blips might be the result of "temperature inversions." Later, a Civil Aeronautics Administration investigation confirmed that such radar blips were quite common and were caused by temperature inversions. (13)

Although it had monitored UFO reports for at least three years, CIA reacted to the new rash of sightings by forming a special study group within the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI) and the Office of Current Intelligence (OCI) to review the situation. (14) Edward Tauss, acting chief of OSI's Weapons and Equipment Division, reported for the group that most UFO sightings could be easily explained. Nevertheless, he recommended that the Agency continue monitoring the problem, in coordination with ATIC. He also urged that CIA conceal its interest from the media and the public, "in view of their probable alarmist tendencies" to accept such interest as confirming the existence of UFOs. (15)

Upon receiving the report, Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) Robert Amory, Jr. assigned responsibility for the UFO investigations to OSI's Physics and Electronics Division, with A. Ray Gordon as the officer in charge. (16) Each branch in the division was to contribute to the investigation, and Gordon was to coordinate closely with ATIC. Amory, who asked the group to focus on the national security implications of UFOs, was relaying DCI Walter Bedell Smith's concerns. (17) Smith wanted to know whether or not the Air Force investigation of flying saucers was sufficiently objective and how much more money and manpower would be necessary to determine the cause of the small percentage of unexplained flying saucers. Smith believed "there was only one chance in 10,000 that the phenomenon posed a threat to the security of the country, but even that chance could not be taken." According to Smith, it was CIA's responsibility by statute to coordinate the intelligence effort required to solve the problem. Smith also wanted to know what use could be made of the UFO phenomenon in connection with US psychological warfare efforts. (18)

Led by Gordon, the CIA Study Group met with Air Force officials at Wright-Patterson and reviewed their data and findings. The Air Force claimed that 90 percent of the reported sightings were easily accounted for. The other 10 percent were characterized as "a number of incredible reports from credible observers." The Air Force rejected the theories that the sightings involved US or Soviet secret weapons development or that they involved "men from Mars"; there was no evidence to support these concepts. The Air Force briefers sought to explain these UFO reports as the misinterpretation of known objects or little understood natural phenomena. (19) Air Force and CIA officials agreed that outside knowledge of Agency interest in UFOs would make the problem more serious. (20) This concealment of CIA interest contributed greatly to later charges of a CIA conspiracy and coverup.


Amateur photographs of alleged UFOs

Passoria, New Jersey, 31 July 1952

Sheffield, England, 4 March 1962
& Minneapolis, Minnesota, 20 October 1960

The CIA Study Group also searched the Soviet press for UFO reports, but found none, causing the group to conclude that the absence of reports had to have been the result of deliberate Soviet Government policy. The group also envisioned the USSR's possible use of UFOs as a psychological warfare tool. In addition, they worried that, if the US air warning system should be deliberately overloaded by UFO sightings, the Soviets might gain a surprise advantage in any nuclear attack. (21)

Because of the tense Cold War situation and increased Soviet capabilities, the CIA Study Group saw serious national security concerns in the flying saucer situation. The group believed that the Soviets could use UFO reports to touch off mass hysteria and panic in the United States. The group also believed that the Soviets might use UFO sightings to overload the US air warning system so that it could not distinguish real targets from phantom UFOs. H. Marshall Chadwell, Assistant Director of OSI, added that he considered the problem of such importance "that it should be brought to the attention of the National Security Council, in order that a communitywide coordinated effort towards it solution may be initiated." (22)

Chadwell briefed DCI Smith on the subject of UFOs in December 1952. He urged action because he was convinced that "something was going on that must have immediate attention" and that "sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major US defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles." He drafted a memorandum from the DCI to the National Security Council (NSC) and a proposed NSC Directive establishing the investigation of UFOs as a priority project throughout the intelligence and the defense research and development community. (23) Chadwell also urged Smith to establish an external research project of top-level scientists to study the problem of UFOs. (24) After this briefing, Smith directed DDI Amory to prepare a NSC Intelligence Directive (NSCID) for submission to the NSC on the need to continue the investigation of UFOs and to coordinate such investigations with the Air Force. (25)

[Top of page]


The Robertson Panel, 1952-53

On 4 December 1952, the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) took up the issue of UFOs. (26) Amory, as acting chairman, presented DCI Smith's request to the committee that it informally discuss the subject of UFOs. Chadwell then briefly reviewed the situation and the active program of the ATIC relating to UFOs. The committee agreed that the DCI should "enlist the services of selected scientists to review and appraise the available evidence in the light of pertinent scientific theories" and draft an NSCID on the subject. (27) Maj. Gen. John A. Samford, Director of Air Force Intelligence, offered full cooperation. (28)

At the same time, Chadwell looked into British efforts in this area. He learned the British also were active in studying the UFO phenomena. An eminent British scientist, R. V. Jones, headed a standing committee created in June 1951 on flying saucers. Jones' and his committee's conclusions on UFOs were similar to those of Agency officials: the sightings were not enemy aircraft but misrepresentations of natural phenomena. The British noted, however, that during a recent air show RAF pilots and senior military officials had observed a "perfect flying saucer." Given the press response, according to the officer, Jones was having a most difficult time trying to correct public opinion regarding UFOs. The public was convinced they were real. (29)

In January 1953, Chadwell and H. P. Robertson, a noted physicist from the California Institute of Technology, put together a distinguished panel of nonmilitary scientists to study the UFO issue. It included Robertson as chairman; Samuel A. Goudsmit, a nuclear physicist from the Brookhaven National Laboratories; Luis Alvarez, a high-energy physicist; Thornton Page, the deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Operations Research Office and an expert on radar and electronics; and Lloyd Berkner, a director of the Brookhaven National Laboratories and a specialist in geophysics. (30)

The charge to the panel was to review the available evidence on UFOs and to consider the possible dangers of the phenomena to US national security. The panel met from 14 to 17 January 1953. It reviewed Air Force data on UFO case histories and, after spending 12 hours studying the phenomena, declared that reasonable explanations could be suggested for most, if not all, sightings. For example, after reviewing motion-picture film taken of a UFO sighting near Tremonton, Utah, on 2 July 1952 and one near Great Falls, Montana, on 15 August 1950, the panel concluded that the images on the Tremonton film were caused by sunlight reflecting off seagulls and that the images at Great Falls were sunlight reflecting off the surface of two Air Force interceptors. (31)

The panel concluded unanimously that there was no evidence of a direct threat to national security in the UFO sightings. Nor could the panel find any evidence that the objects sighted might be extraterrestrials. It did find that continued emphasis on UFO reporting might threaten "the orderly functioning" of the government by clogging the channels of communication with irrelevant reports and by inducing "hysterical mass behavior" harmful to constituted authority. The panel also worried that potential enemies contemplating an attack on the United States might exploit the UFO phenomena and use them to disrupt US air defenses. (32)

To meet these problems, the panel recommended that the National Security Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even the Disney corporation to get the message across. Reporting at the height of McCarthyism, the panel also recommended that such private UFO groups as the Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators in Los Angeles and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization in Wisconsin be monitored for subversive activities. (33)

The Robertson panel's conclusions were strikingly similar to those of the earlier Air Force project reports on SIGN and GRUDGE and to those of the CIA's own OSI Study Group. All investigative groups found that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national security and no evidence of visits by extraterrestrials.

Following the Robertson panel findings, the Agency abandoned efforts to draft an NSCID on UFOs. (34) The Scientific Advisory Panel on UFOs (the Robertson panel) submitted its report to the IAC, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board. CIA officials said no further consideration of the subject appeared warranted, although they continued to monitor sightings in the interest of national security. Philip Strong and Fred Durant from OSI also briefed the Office of National Estimates on the findings. (35) CIA officials wanted knowledge of any Agency interest in the subject of flying saucers carefully restricted, noting not only that the Robertson panel report was classified but also that any mention of CIA sponsorship of the panel was forbidden. This attitude would later cause the Agency major problems relating to its credibility. (36)

[Top of page]


The 1950s: Fading CIA Interest in UFOs

After the report of the Robertson panel, Agency officials put the entire issue of UFOs on the back burner. In May 1953, Chadwell transferred chief responsibility for keeping abreast of UFOs to OSI's Physics and Electronic Division, while the Applied Science Division continued to provide any necessary support. (37) Todos M. Odarenko, chief of the Physics and Electronics Division, did not want to take on the problem, contending that it would require too much of his division's analytic and clerical time. Given the findings of the Robertson panel, he proposed to consider the project "inactive" and to devote only one analyst part-time and a file clerk to maintain a reference file of the activities of the Air Force and other agencies on UFOs. Neither the Navy nor the Army showed much interest in UFOs, according to Odarenko. (38)

A nonbeliever in UFOs, Odarenko sought to have his division relieved of the responsibility for monitoring UFO reports. In 1955, for example, he recommended that the entire project be terminated because no new information concerning UFOs had surfaced. Besides, he argued, his division was facing a serious budget reduction and could not spare the resources. (39) Chadwell and other Agency officials, however, continued to worry about UFOs. Of special concern were overseas reports of UFO sightings and claims that German engineers held by the Soviets were developing a "flying saucer" as a future weapon of war. (40)

To most US political and military leaders, the Soviet Union by the mid-1950s had become a dangerous opponent. Soviet progress in nuclear weapons and guided missiles was particularly alarming. In the summer of 1949, the USSR had detonated an atomic bomb. In August 1953, only nine months after the United States tested a hydrogen bomb, the Soviets detonated one. In the spring of 1953, a top secret RAND Corporation study also pointed out the vulnerability of SAC bases to a surprise attack by Soviet long-range bombers. Concern over the danger of a Soviet attack on the United States continued to grow, and UFO sightings added to the uneasiness of US policymakers.

Mounting reports of UFOs over eastern Europe and Afghanistan also prompted concern that the Soviets were making rapid progress in this area. CIA officials knew that the British and Canadians were already experimenting with "flying saucers." Project Y was a Canadian-British-US developmental operation to produce a nonconventional flying-saucer-type aircraft, and Agency officials feared the Soviets were testing similar devices. (41)

Adding to the concern was a flying saucer sighting by US Senator Richard Russell and his party while traveling on a train in the USSR in October 1955. After extensive interviews of Russell and his group, however, CIA officials concluded that Russell's sighting did not support the theory that the Soviets had developed saucerlike or unconventional aircraft. Herbert Scoville, Jr., the Assistant Director of OSI, wrote that the objects observed probably were normal jet aircraft in a steep climb. (42)

Wilton E. Lexow, head of the CIA's Applied Sciences Division, was also skeptical. He questioned why the Soviets were continuing to develop conventional-type aircraft if they had a "flying saucer." (43) Scoville asked Lexow to assume responsibility for fully assessing the capabilities and limitations of nonconventional aircraft and to maintain the OSI central file on the subject of UFOs.

[Top of page]


CIA's U-2 and OXCART as UFOs

In November 1954, CIA had entered into the world of high technology with its U-2 overhead reconnaissance project. Working with Lockheed's Advanced Development facility in Burbank, California, known as the Skunk Works, and Kelly Johnson, an eminent aeronautical engineer, the Agency by August 1955 was testing a high-altitude experimental aircraft--the U-2. It could fly at 60,000 feet; in the mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew between 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. Consequently, once the U-2 started test flights, commercial pilots and air traffic controllers began reporting a large increase in UFO sightings. (44) (U)

The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected the rays from the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. By checking with the Agency's U-2 Project Staff in Washington, BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. They were careful, however, not to reveal the true cause of the sighting to the public.

According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)

At the same time, pressure was building for the release of the Robertson panel report on UFOs. In 1956, Edward Ruppelt, former head of the Air Force BLUE BOOK project, publicly revealed the existence of the panel. A best-selling book by UFOlogist Donald Keyhoe, a retired Marine Corps major, advocated release of all government information relating to UFOs. Civilian UFO groups such as the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) immediately pushed for release of the Robertson panel report. (47) Under pressure, the Air Force approached CIA for permission to declassify and release the report. Despite such pressure, Philip Strong, Deputy Assistant Director of OSI, refused to declassify the report and declined to disclose CIA sponsorship of the panel. As an alternative, the Agency prepared a sanitized version of the report which deleted any reference to CIA and avoided mention of any psychological warfare potential in the UFO controversy. (48)

The demands, however, for more government information about UFOs did not let up. On 8 March 1958, Keyhoe, in an interview with Mike Wallace of CBS, claimed deep CIA involvement with UFOs and Agency sponsorship of the Robertson panel. This prompted a series of letters to the Agency from Keyhoe and Dr. Leon Davidson, a chemical engineer and UFOlogist. They demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and confirmation of CIA involvement in the UFO issue. Davidson had convinced himself that the Agency, not the Air Force, carried most of the responsibility for UFO analysis and that "the activities of the US Government are responsible for the flying saucer sightings of the last decade." Indeed, because of the undisclosed U-2 and OXCART flights, Davidson was closer to the truth than he suspected. CI, nevertheless held firm to its policy of not revealing its role in UFO investigations and refused to declassify the full Robertson panel report. (49)

In a meeting with Air Force representatives to discuss how to handle future inquires such as Keyhoe's and Davidson's, Agency officials confirmed their opposition to the declassification of the full report and worried that Keyhoe had the ear of former DCI VAdm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter, who served on the board of governors of NICAP. They debated whether to have CIA General Counsel Lawrence R. Houston show Hillenkoetter the report as a possible way to defuse the situation. CIA officer Frank Chapin also hinted that Davidson might have ulterior motives, "some of them perhaps not in the best interest of this country," and suggested bringing in the FBI to investigate. (50) Although the record is unclear whether the FBI ever instituted an investigation of Davidson or Keyhoe, or whether Houston ever saw Hillenkoetter about the Robertson report, Hillenkoetter did resign from the NICAP in 1962. (51)

The Agency was also involved with Davidson and Keyhoe in two rather famous UFO cases in the 1950s, which helped contribute to a growing sense of public distrust of CIA with regard to UFOs. One focused on what was reported to have been a tape recording of a radio signal from a flying saucer; the other on reported photographs of a flying saucer. The "radio code" incident began innocently enough in 1955, when two elderly sisters in Chicago, Mildred and Marie Maier, reported in the Journal of Space Flight their experiences with UFOs, including the recording of a radio program in which an unidentified code was reportedly heard. The sisters taped the program and other ham radio operators also claimed to have heard the "space message." OSI became interested and asked the Scientific Contact Branch to obtain a copy of the recording. (52)

Field officers from the Contact Division (CD), one of whom was Dewelt Walker, made contact with the Maier sisters, who were "thrilled that the government was interested," and set up a time to meet with them. (53) In trying to secure the tape recording, the Agency officers reported that they had stumbled upon a scene from Arsenic and Old Lace. "The only thing lacking was the elderberry wine," Walker cabled Headquarters. After reviewing the sisters' scrapbook of clippings from their days on the stage, the officers secured a copy of the recording. (54) OSI analyzed the tape and found it was nothing more than Morse code from a US radio station.

The matter rested there until UFOlogist Leon Davidson talked with the Maier sisters in 1957. The sisters remembered they had talked with a Mr. Walker who said he was from the US Air Force. Davidson then wrote to a Mr. Walker, believing him to be a US Air Force Intelligence Officer from Wright-Patterson, to ask if the tape had been analyzed at ATIC. Dewelt Walker replied to Davidson that the tape had been forwarded to proper authorities for evaluation, and no information was available concerning the results. Not satisfied, and suspecting that Walker was really a CIA officer, Davidson next wrote DCI Allen Dulles demanding to learn what the coded message revealed and who Mr. Walker was. (55) The Agency, wanting to keep Walker's identity as a CIA employee secret, replied that another agency of the government had analyzed the tape in question and that Davidson would be hearing from the Air Force. (56) On 5 August, the Air Force wrote Davidson saying that Walker "was and is an Air Force Officer" and that the tape "was analyzed by another government organization." The Air Force letter confirmed that the recording contained only identifiable Morse code which came from a known US-licensed radio station. (57)

Davidson wrote Dulles again. This time he wanted to know the identity of the Morse operator and of the agency that had conducted the analysis. CIA and the Air Force were now in a quandary. The Agency had previously denied that it had actually analyzed the tape. The Air Force had also denied analyzing the tape and claimed that Walker was an Air Force officer. CIA officers, under cover, contacted Davidson in Chicago and promised to get the code translation and the identification of the transmitter, if possible. (58)

In another attempt to pacify Davidson, a CIA officer, again under cover and wearing his Air Force uniform, contacted Davidson in New York City. The CIA officer explained that there was no super agency involved and that Air Force policy was not to disclose who was doing what. While seeming to accept this argument, Davidson nevertheless pressed for disclosure of the recording message and the source. The officer agreed to see what he could do. (59) After checking with Headquarters, the CIA officer phoned Davidson to report that a thorough check had been made and, because the signal was of known US origin, the tape and the notes made at the time had been destroyed to conserve file space. (60)

Incensed over what he perceived was a runaround, Davidson told the CIA officer that "he and his agency, whichever it was, were acting like Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamster Union in destroying records which might indict them." (61) Believing that any more contact with Davidson would only encourage more speculation, the Contact Division washed its hands of the issue by reporting to the DCI and to ATIC that it would not respond to or try to contact Davidson again. (62) Thus, a minor, rather bizarre incident, handled poorly by both CIA and the Air Force, turned into a major flap that added fuel to the growing mystery surrounding UFOs and CIA's role in their investigation.

Another minor flap a few months later added to the growing questions surrounding the Agency's true role with regard to flying saucers. CIA's concern over secrecy again made matters worse. In 1958, Major Keyhoe charged that the Agency was deliberately asking eyewitnesses of UFOs not to make their sightings public. (63)

The incident stemmed from a November 1957 request from OSI to the CD to obtain from Ralph C. Mayher, a photographer for KYW-TV in Cleveland, Ohio, certain photographs he took in 1952 of an unidentified flying object. Harry Real, a CD officer, contacted Mayher and obtained copies of the photographs for analysis. On 12 December 1957, John Hazen, another CD officer, returned the five photographs of the alleged UFO to Mayher without comment. Mayher asked Hazen for the Agency's evaluation of the photos, explaining that he was trying to organize a TV program to brief the public on UFOs. He wanted to mention on the show that a US intelligence organization had viewed the photographs and thought them of interest. Although he advised Mayher not to take this approach, Hazen stated that Mayher was a US citizen and would have to make his own decision as to what to do. (64)

Keyhoe later contacted Mayher, who told him his story of CIA and the photographs. Keyhoe then asked the Agency to confirm Hazen's employment in writing, in an effort to expose CIA's role in UFO investigations. The Agency refused, despite the fact that CD field representatives were normally overt and carried credentials identifying their Agency association. DCI Dulles's aide, John S. Earman, merely sent Keyhoe a noncommittal letter noting that, because UFOs were of primary concern to the Department of the Air Force, the Agency had referred his letter to the Air Force for an appropriate response. Like the response to Davidson, the Agency reply to Keyhoe only fueled the speculation that the Agency was deeply involved in UFO sightings. Pressure for release of CIA information on UFOs continued to grow. (65)

Although CIA had a declining interest in UFO cases, it continued to monitor UFO sightings. Agency officials felt the need to keep informed on UFOs if only to alert the DCI to the more sensational UFO reports and flaps. (66)

[Top of page]


The 1960s: Declining CIA Involvement and Mounting Controversy

In the early 1960s, Keyhoe, Davidson, and other UFOlogists maintained their assault on the Agency for release of UFO information. Davidson now claimed that CIA "was solely responsible for creating the Flying Saucer furor as a tool for cold war psychological warfare since 1951." Despite calls for Congressional hearings and the release of all materials relating to UFOs, little changed. (67)

In 1964, however, following high-level White House discussions on what to do if an alien intelligence was discovered in space and a new outbreak of UFO reports and sightings, DCI John McCone asked for an updated CIA evaluation of UFOs. Responding to McCone's request, OSI asked the CD to obtain various recent samples and reports of UFO sightings from NICAP. With Keyhoe, one of the founders, no longer active in the organization, CIA officers met with Richard H. Hall, the acting director. Hall gave the officers samples from the NICAP database on the most recent sightings. (68)

After OSI officers had reviewed the material, Donald F. Chamberlain, OSI Assistant Director, assured McCone that little had changed since the early 1950s. There was still no evidence that UFOs were a threat to the security of the United States or that they were of "foreign origin." Chamberlain told McCone that OSI still monitored UFO reports, including the official Air Force investigation, Project BLUE BOOK. (69)

At the same time that CIA was conducting this latest internal review of UFOs, public pressure forced the Air Force to establish a special ad hoc committee to review BLUE BOOK. Chaired by Dr. Brian O'Brien, a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the panel included Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer from Cornell University. Its report offered nothing new. It declared that UFOs did not threaten the national security and that it could find "no UFO case which represented technological or scientific advances outside of a terrestrial framework." The committee did recommend that UFOs be studied intensively, with a leading university acting as a coordinator for the project, to settle the issue conclusively. (70)

The House Armed Services Committee also held brief hearings on UFOs in 1966 that produced similar results. Secretary of the Air Force Harold Brown assured the committee that most sightings were easily explained and that there was no evidence that "strangers from outer space" had been visiting Earth. He told the committee members, however, that the Air Force would keep an open mind and continue to investigate all UFO reports. (71)

Following the report of its O'Brien Committee, the House hearings on UFOs, and Dr. Robertson's disclosure on a CBS Reports program that CIA indeed had been involved in UFO analysis, the Air Force in July 1966 again approached the Agency for declassification of the entire Robertson panel report of 1953 and the full Durant report on the Robertson panel deliberations and findings. The Agency again refused to budge. Karl H. Weber, Deputy Director of OSI, wrote the Air Force that "We are most anxious that further publicity not be given to the information that the panel was sponsored by the CIA." Weber noted that there was already a sanitized version available to the public. (72) Weber's response was rather shortsighted and ill considered. It only drew more attention to the 13-year-old Robertson panel report and CIA's role in the investigation of UFOs. The science editor of The Saturday Review drew nationwide attention to the CIA's role in investigating UFOs when he published an article criticizing the "sanitized version" of the 1953 Robertson panel report and called for release of the entire document. (73)

Unknown to CIA officials, Dr. James E. McDonald, a noted atmospheric physicist from the University of Arizona, had already seen the Durant report on the Robertson panel proceedings at Wright-Patterson on 6 June 1966. When McDonald returned to Wright-Patterson on 30 June to copy the report, however, the Air Force refused to let him see it again, stating that it was a CIA classified document. Emerging as a UFO authority, McDonald publicly claimed that the CIA was behind the Air Force secrecy policies and coverup. He demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and the Durant report. (74)

Bowing to public pressure and the recommendation of its own O'Brien Committee, the Air Force announced in August 1966 that it was seeking a contract with a leading university to undertake a program of intensive investigations of UFO sightings. The new program was designed to blunt continuing charges that the US Government had concealed what it knew about UFOs. On 7 October, the University of Colorado accepted a $325,000 contract with the Air Force for an 18-month study of flying saucers. Dr. Edward U. Condon, a physicist at Colorado and a former Director of the National Bureau of Standards, agreed to head the program. Pronouncing himself an "agnostic" on the subject of UFOs, Condon observed that he had an open mind on the question and thought that possible extraterritorial origins were "improbable but not impossible." (75) Brig. Gen. Edward Giller, USAF, and Dr. Thomas Ratchford from the Air Force Research and Development Office became the Air Force coordinators for the project.

In February 1967, Giller contacted Arthur C. Lundahl, Director of CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), and proposed an informal liaison through which NPIC could provide the Condon Committee with technical advice and services in examining photographs of alleged UFOs. Lundahl and DDI R. Jack Smith approved the arrangement as a way of "preserving a window" on the new effort. They wanted the CIA and NPIC to maintain a low profile, however, and to take no part in writing any conclusions for the committee. No work done for the committee by NPIC was to be formally acknowledged. (76)

Ratchford next requested that Condon and his committee be allowed to visit NPIC to discuss the technical aspects of the problem and to view the special equipment NPIC had for photoanalysis. On 20 February 1967, Condon and four members of his committee visited NPIC. Lundahl emphasized to the group that any NPIC work to assist the committee must not be identified as CIA work. Moreover, work performed by NPIC would be strictly of a technical nature. After receiving these guidelines, the group heard a series of briefings on the services and equipment not available elsewhere that CIA had used in its analysis of some UFO photography furnished by Ratchford. Condon and his committee were impressed. (77)

Condon and the same group met again in May 1967 at NPIC to hear an analysis of UFO photographs taken at Zanesville, Ohio. The analysis debunked that sighting. The committee was again impressed with the technical work performed, and Condon remarked that for the first time a scientific analysis of a UFO would stand up to investigation. (78) The group also discussed the committee's plans to call on US citizens for additional photographs and to issue guidelines for taking useful UFO photographs. In addition, CIA officials agreed that the Condon Committee could release the full Durant report with only minor deletions.

In April 1969, Condon and his committee released their report on UFOs. The report concluded that little, if anything, had come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years and that further extensive study of UFO sightings was unwarranted. It also recommended that the Air Force special unit, Project BLUE BOOK, be discontinued. It did not mention CIA participation in the Condon committee's investigation. (79) A special panel established by the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the Condon report and concurred with its conclusion that "no high priority in UFO investigations is warranted by data of the past two decades." It concluded its review by declaring, "On the basis of present knowledge, the least likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings." Following the recommendations of the Condon Committee and the National Academy of Sciences, the Secretary of the Air Force, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., announced on 17 December 1969 the termination of BLUE BOOK. (80)

[Top of page]


The 1970s and 1980s: The UFO Issue Refuses To Die

The Condon report did not satisfy many UFOlogists, who considered it a coverup for CIA activities in UFO research. Additional sightings in the early 1970s fueled beliefs that the CIA was somehow involved in a vast conspiracy. On 7 June 1975, William Spaulding, head of a small UFO group, Ground Saucer Watch (GSW), wrote to CIA requesting a copy of the Robertson panel report and all records relating to UFOs. (81) Spaulding was convinced that the Agency was withholding major files on UFOs. Agency officials provided Spaulding with a copy of the Robertson panel report and of the Durant report. (82)

On 14 July 1975, Spaulding again wrote the Agency questioning the authenticity of the reports he had received and alleging a CIA coverup of its UFO activities. Gene Wilson, CIA's Information and Privacy Coordinator, replied in an attempt to satisfy Spaulding, "At no time prior to the formation of the Robertson Panel and subsequent to the issuance of the panel's report has CIA engaged in the study of the UFO phenomena." The Robertson panel report, according to Wilson, was "the summation of Agency interest and involvement in UFOs." Wilson also inferred that there were no additional documents in CIA's possession that related to UFOs. Wilson was ill informed. (83)

In September 1977, Spaulding and GSW, unconvinced by Wilson's response, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Agency that specifically requested all UFO documents in CIA's possession. Deluged by similar FOIA requests for Agency information on UFOs, CIA officials agreed, after much legal maneuvering, to conduct a "reasonable search" of CIA files for UFO materials. (84) Despite an Agency-wide unsympathetic attitude toward the suit, Agency officials, led by Launie Ziebell from the Office of General Counsel, conducted a thorough search for records pertaining to UFOs. Persistent, demanding, and even threatening at times, Ziebell and his group scoured the Agency. They even turned up an old UFO file under a secretary's desk. The search finally produced 355 documents totaling approximately 900 pages. On 14 December 1978, the Agency released all but 57 documents of about 100 pages to GSW. It withheld these 57 documents on national security grounds and to protect sources and methods. (85)

Although the released documents produced no smoking gun and revealed only a low-level Agency interest in the UFO phenomena after the Robertson panel report of 1953, the press treated the release in a sensational manner. The New York Times, for example, claimed that the declassified documents confirmed intensive government concern over UFOs and that the Agency was secretly involved in the surveillance of UFOs. (86) GSW then sued for the release of the withheld documents, claiming that the Agency was still holding out key information. (87) It was much like the John F. Kennedy assassination issue. No matter how much material the Agency released and no matter how dull and prosaic the information, people continued to believe in a Agency coverup and conspiracy.

DCI Stansfield Turner was so upset when he read The New York Times article that he asked his senior officers, "Are we in UFOs?" After reviewing the records, Don Wortman, Deputy Director for Administration, reported to Turner that there was "no organized Agency effort to do research in connection with UFO phenomena nor has there been an organized effort to collect intelligence on UFOs since the 1950s." Wortman assured Turner that the Agency records held only "sporadic instances of correspondence dealing with the subject," including various kinds of reports of UFO sightings. There was no Agency program to collect actively information on UFOs, and the material released to GSW had few deletions. (88) Thus assured, Turner had the General Counsel press for a summary judgment against the new lawsuit by GSW. In May 1980, the courts dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the Agency had conducted a thorough and adequate search in good faith. (89)

During the late 1970s and 1980s, the Agency continued its low-key interest in UFOs and UFO sightings. While most scientists now dismissed flying saucers reports as a quaint part of the 1950s and 1960s, some in the Agency and in the Intelligence Community shifted their interest to studying parapsychology and psychic phenomena associated with UFO sightings. CIA officials also looked at the UFO problem to determine what UFO sightings might tell them about Soviet progress in rockets and missiles and reviewed its counterintelligence aspects. Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relating to UFOs. 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.

CIA also maintained Intelligence Community coordination with other agencies regarding their work in parapsychology, psychic phenomena, and "remote viewing" experiments. In general, the Agency took a conservative scientific view of these unconventional scientific issues. There was no formal or official UFO project within the Agency in the 1980s, and Agency officials purposely kept files on UFOs to a minimum to avoid creating records that might mislead the public if released. (90)

The 1980s also produced renewed charges that the Agency was still withholding documents relating to the 1947 Roswell incident, in which a flying saucer supposedly crashed in New Mexico, and the surfacing of documents which purportedly revealed the existence of a top secret US research and development intelligence operation responsible only to the President on UFOs in the late 1940s and early 1950s. UFOlogists had long argued that, following a flying saucer crash in New Mexico in 1947, the government not only recovered debris from the crashed saucer but also four or five alien bodies. According to some UFOlogists, the government clamped tight security around the project and has refused to divulge its investigation results and research ever since. (91) In September 1994, the US Air Force released a new report on the Roswell incident that concluded that the debris found in New Mexico in 1947 probably came from a once top secret balloon operation, Project MOGUL, designed to monitor the atmosphere for evidence of Soviet nuclear tests. (92)

Circa 1984, a series of documents surfaced which some UFOlogists said proved that President Truman created a top secret committee in 1947, Majestic-12, to secure the recovery of UFO wreckage from Roswell and any other UFO crash sight for scientific study and to examine any alien bodies recovered from such sites. Most if not all of these documents have proved to be fabrications. Yet the controversy persists. (93)

[font color="red"]Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the Agency does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies of rational explanation and evidence.
[/font color]

[Top of page]

Notes

(1) See the 1973 Gallup Poll results printed in The New York Times, 29 November 1973, p. 45 and Philip J. Klass, UFOs: The Public Deceived (New York: Prometheus Books, 1983), p. 3.

(2) See Klass, UFOs, p. 3; James S. Gordon, "The UFO Experience," Atlantic Monthly (August 1991), pp. 82-92; David Michael Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975); Howard Blum, Out There: The Government's Secret Quest for Extraterrestrials (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990); Timothy Good, Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-Up (New York: William Morrow, 1987); and Whitley Strieber, Communion: The True Story (New York: Morrow, 1987).

(3) In September 1993 John Peterson, an acquaintance of Woolsey's, first approached the DCI with a package of heavily sanitized CIA material on UFOs released to UFOlogist Stanton T. Friedman. Peterson and Friedman wanted to know the reasons for the redactions. Woolsey agreed to look into the matter. See Richard J. Warshaw, Executive Assistant, note to author, 1 November 1994; Warshaw, note to John H. Wright, Information and Privacy Coordinator, 31 January 1994; and Wright, memorandum to Executive Secretariat, 2 March 1994. (Except where noted, all citations to CIA records in this article are to the records collected for the 1994 Agency-wide search that are held by the Executive Assistant to the DCI).

(4) See Hector Quintanilla, Jr., "The Investigation of UFOs," Vol. 10, No. 4, Studies in Intelligence (fall 1966): pp.95-110 and CIA, unsigned memorandum, "Flying Saucers," 14 August 1952. See also Good, Above Top Secret, p. 253. During World War II, US pilots reported "foo fighters" (bright lights trailing US aircraft). Fearing they might be Japanese or German secret weapons, OSS investigated but could find no concrete evidence of enemy weapons and often filed such reports in the "crackpot" category. The OSS also investigated possible sightings of German V-1 and V-2 rockets before their operational use during the war. See Jacobs, UFO Controversy, p. 33. The Central Intelligence Group, the predecessor of the CIA, also monitored reports of "ghost rockets" in Sweden in 1946. See CIG, Intelligence Report, 9 April 1947.

(5) Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 156 and Quintanilla, "The Investigation of UFOs," p. 97.

(6) See US Air Force, Air Material Command, "Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project SIGN, no. F-TR 2274, IA, February 1949, Records of the US Air Force Commands, Activities and Organizations, Record Group 341, National Archives, Washington, DC.

(7) See US Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUEBOOK Reports 1- 12 (Washington, DC; National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1968) and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 50-54.

(8) See Cabell, memorandum to Commanding Generals Major Air Commands, "Reporting of Information on Unconventional Aircraft," 8 September 1950 and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 65.

(9) See Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUE BOOK and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 67.

(10) See Edward Tauss, memorandum for Deputy Assistant Director, SI, "Flying Saucers," 1 August 1952. See also United Kingdom, Report by the "Flying Saucer" Working Party, "Unidentified Flying Objects," no date (approximately 1950).

(11) See Dr. Stone, OSI, memorandum to Dr. Willard Machle, OSI, 15 March 1949 and Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistant Director, OSI, memorandum for DDI, "Recent Sightings of Unexplained Objects," 29 July 1952.

(12) Stone, memorandum to Machle. See also Clark, memorandum for DDI, 29 July 1952.

(13) See Klass, UFOs, p. 15. For a brief review of the Washington sightings see Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 269-271.

(14) See Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistant Director, OSI, memorandum to DDI Robert Amory, Jr., 29 July 1952. OSI and OCI were in the Directorate of Intelligence. Established in 1948, OSI served as the CIA's focal point for the analysis of foreign scientific and technological developments. In 1980, OSI was merged into the Office of Science and Weapons Research. The Office of Current Intelligence (OCI), established on 15 January 1951 was to provide all-source current intelligence to the President and the National Security Council.

(15) Tauss, memorandum for Deputy Assistant Director, SI (Philip Strong), 1 August 1952.

(16) On 2 January 1952, DCI Walter Bedell Smith created a Deputy Directorate for Intelligence (DDI) composed of six overt CIA organizations--OSI, OCI, Office of Collection and Dissemination, Office National Estimates, Office of Research and Reports, and the Office of Intelligence Coordination--to produce intelligence analysis for US policymakers.

(17) See Minutes of Branch Chief's Meeting, 11 August 1952.

(18) Smith expressed his opinions at a meeting in the DCI Conference Room attended by his top officers. See Deputy Chief, Requirements Staff, FI, memorandum for Deputy Director, Plans, "Flying Saucers," 20 August 1952, Directorate of Operations Records, Information Management Staff, Job 86-00538R, Box 1.

(19) See CIA memorandum, unsigned, "Flying Saucers," 11 August 1952.

(20) See CIA, memorandum, unsigned, "Flying Saucers," 14 August 1952.

(21) See CIA, memorandum, unsigned, "Flying Saucers," 19 August 1952.

(22) See Chadwell, memorandum for Smith, 17 September 1952 and 24 September 1952, "Flying Saucers." See also Chadwell, memorandum for DCI Smith, 2 October 1952 and Klass, UFOs, pp. 23-26.

(23) Chadwell, memorandum for DCI with attachments, 2 December 1952. See also Klass, UFOs, pp. 26-27 and Chadwell, memorandum, 25 November 1952.

(24) See Chadwell, memorandum, 25 November 1952 and Chadwell, memorandum, "Approval in Principle - External Research Project Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects," no date. See also Philip G. Strong, OSI, memorandum for the record, "Meeting with Dr. Julius A. Stratton, Executive Vice President and Provost, MIT and Dr. Max Millikan, Director of CENIS." Strong believed that in order to undertake such a review they would need the full backing and support of DCI Smith.

(25) See Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, ""Unidentified Flying Objects," 2 December 1952. See also Chadwell, memorandum for Amory, DDI, "Approval in Principle - External Research Project Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects," no date.

(26) The IAC was created in 1947 to serve as a coordinating body in establishing intelligence requirements. Chaired by the DCI, the IAC included representatives from the Department of State, the Army, the Air Force, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the FBI, and the AEC.

(27) See Klass, UFOs, p. 27.

(28) See Richard D. Drain, Acting Secretary, IAC, "Minutes of Meeting held in Director's Conference Room, Administration Building, CIA," 4 December 1952.

(29) See Chadwell, memorandum for the record, "British Activity in the Field of UFOs," 18 December 1952.

(30) See Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, "Consultants for Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects," 9 January 1953; Curtis Peebles, Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994). pp. 73-90; and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 91-92.

(31) See Fred C. Durant III, Report on the Robertson Panel Meeting, January 1953. Durant, on contract with OSI and a past president of the American Rocket Society, attended the Robertson panel meetings and wrote a summary of the proceedings.

(32) See Report of the Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects (the Robertson Report), 17 January 1953 and the Durant report on the panel discussions.

(33) See Robertson Report and Durant Report. See also Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 337-38, Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 95, and Klass, UFO's, pp. 28-29.

(34) See Reber, memorandum to IAC, 18 February 1953.

(35) See Chadwell, memorandum for DDI, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 10 February 1953; Chadwell, letter to Robertson, 28 January 1953; and Reber, memorandum for IAC, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 18 February 1953. On briefing the ONE, see Durant, memorandum for the record, "Briefing of ONE Board on Unidentified Flying Objects," 30 January 1953 and CIA Summary disseminated to the field, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 6 February 1953.

(36) See Chadwell, letter to Julius A. Stratton, Provost MIT, 27 January 1953.

(37) See Chadwell, memorandum for Chief, Physics and Electronics Division/OSI (Todos M. Odarenko), "Unidentified Flying Objects," 27 May 1953.

(38) See Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 3 July 1953. See also Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, "Current Status of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) Project," 17 December 1953.

(39) See Odarenko, memorandum, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 8 August 1955.

(40) See FBIS, report, "Military Unconventional Aircraft," 18 August 1953 and various reports, "Military-Air, Unconventional Aircraft," 1953, 1954, 1955.

(41) Developed by the Canadian affiliate of Britain's A. V. Roe, Ltd., Project Y did produce a small-scale model that hovered a few feet off the ground. See Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, "Flying Saucer Type of Planes" 25 May 1954; Frederic C. E. Oder, memorandum to Odarenko, "USAF Project Y," 21 May 1954; and Odarenko, T. M. Nordbeck, Ops/SI, and Sidney Graybeal, ASD/SI, memorandum for the record, "Intelligence Responsibilities for Non-Conventional Types of Air Vehicles," 14 June 1954.

(42) See Reuben Efron, memorandum, "Observation of Flying Object Near Baku," 13 October 1955; Scoville, memorandum for the record, "Interview with Senator Richard B. Russell," 27 October 1955; and Wilton E. Lexow, memorandum for information, "Reported Sighting of Unconventional Aircraft," 19 October 1955.

(43) See Lexow, memorandum for information, "Reported Sighting of Unconventional Aircraft," 19 October 1955. See also Frank C. Bolser, memorandum for George C. Miller, Deputy Chief, SAD/SI, "Possible Soviet Flying Saucers, Check On;" Lexow, memorandum, "Possible Soviet Flying Saucers, Follow Up On," 17 December 1954; Lexow, memorandum, "Possible Soviet Flying Saucers," 1 December 1954; and A. H. Sullivan, Jr., memorandum, "Possible Soviet Flying Saucers," 24 November 1954.

(44) See Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974 (Washington, DC: CIA History Staff, 1992), pp. 72-73.

(45) See Pedlow and Welzenbach, Overhead Reconnaissance, pp. 72-73. This also was confirmed in a telephone interview between the author and John Parongosky, 26 July 1994. Parongosky oversaw the day-to-day affairs of the OXCART program.

(46) See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 135.

(47) See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 128-146; Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Doubleday, 1956); Keyhoe, The Flying Saucer Conspiracy (New York: Holt, 1955); and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 347-49.

(48) See Strong, letter to Lloyd W. Berkner; Strong, letter to Thorton Page; Strong, letter to Robertson; Strong, letter to Samuel Goudsmit; Strong, letter to Luis Alvarez, 20 December 1957; and Strong, memorandum for Major James F. Byrne, Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence Department of the Air Force, "Declassification of the `Report of the Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects,'" 20 December 1957. See also Berkner, letter to Strong, 20 November 1957 and Page, letter to Strong, 4 December 1957. The panel members were also reluctant to have their association with the Agency released.

(49) See Wilton E. Lexow, memorandum for the record, "Comments on Letters Dealing with Unidentified Flying Objects," 4 April 1958; J. S. Earman, letter to Major Lawrence J. Tacker, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Information Service, 4 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Berkner, 8 April 1958; Berkner, letter to Davidson, 18 April 1958; Berkner, letter to Strong, 21 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Tacker, 27 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Allen Dulles, 27 April 1958; Ruppelt, letter to Davidson, 7 May 1958; Strong, letter to Berkner, 8 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Berkner, 8 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Earman, 16 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Goudsmit, 18 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Page, 18 May 1958; and Tacker, letter to Davidson, 20 May 1958.

(50) See Lexow, memorandum for Chapin, 28 July 1958.

(51) See Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 346-47; Lexow, memorandum for the record, "Meeting with the Air Force Personnel Concerning Scientific Advisory Panel Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, dated 17 January 1953 (S)," 16 May 1958. See also La Rae L. Teel, Deputy Division Chief, ASD, memorandum for the record, "Meeting with Mr. Chapin on Replying to Leon Davidson's UFO Letter and Subsequent Telephone Conversation with Major Thacker, [sic]" 22 May 1958.

(52) See Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chief, Contact Division (Scientific), memorandum to Chief, Chicago Office, "Radio Code Recording," 4 March 1955 and Ashcraft, memorandum to Chief, Support Branch, OSI, 17 March 1955.

(53) The Contact Division was created to collect foreign intelligence information from sources within the United States. See the Directorate of Intelligence Historical Series, The Origin and Development of Contact Division, 11 July 1946­1 July 1965 (Washington, DC; CIA Historical Staff, June 1969).

(54) See George O. Forrest, Chief, Chicago Office, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division for Science, 11 March 1955.

(55) See Support Division (Connell), memorandum to Dewelt E. Walker, 25 April 1957.

(56) See J. Arnold Shaw, Assistant to the Director, letter to Davidson, 10 May 1957.

(57) See Support (Connell) memorandum to Lt. Col. V. Skakich, 27 August 1957 and Lamountain, memorandum to Support (Connell), 20 December 1957.

(58) See Lamountain, cable to Support (Connell), 31 July 1958.

(59) See Support (Connell) cable to Skakich, 3 October 1957 and Skakich, cable to Connell, 9 October 1957.

(60) See Skakich, cable to Connell, 9 October 1957.

(61) See R. P. B. Lohmann, memorandum for Chief, Contact Division, DO, 9 January 1958.

(62) See Support, cable to Skakich, 20 February 1958 and Connell (Support) cable to Lamountain, 19 December 1957.

(63) See Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chief, Contact Division, Office of Operations, memorandum for Austin Bricker, Jr., Assistant to the Director, "Inquiry by Major Donald E. Keyhoe on John Hazen's Association with the Agency," 22 January 1959.

(64) See John T. Hazen, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division, 12 December 1957. See also Ashcraft, memorandum to Cleveland Resident Agent, "Ralph E. Mayher," 20 December 1957. According to this memorandum, the photographs were viewed at "a high level and returned to us without comment." The Air Force held the original negatives. The CIA records were probably destroyed.

(65) The issue would resurface in the 1970s with the GSW FOIA court case.

(66) See Robert Amory, Jr., DDI, memorandum for Assistant Director/Scientific Intelligence, "Flying Saucers," 26 March 1956. See also Wallace R. Lamphire, Office of the Director, Planning and Coordination Staff, memorandum for Richard M. Bissell, Jr., "Unidentified Flying Saucers (UFO)," 11 June 1957; Philip Strong, memorandum for the Director, NPIC, "Reported Photography of Unidentified Flying Objects," 27 October 1958; Scoville, memorandum to Lawrence Houston, Legislative Counsel, "Reply to Honorable Joseph E. Garth," 12 July 1961; and Houston, letter to Garth, 13 July 1961.

(67) See, for example, Davidson, letter to Congressman Joseph Garth, 26 June 1961 and Carl Vinson, Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, letter to Rep. Robert A. Everett, 2 September 1964.

(68) See Maxwell W. Hunter, staff member, National Aeronautics and Space Council, Executive Office of the President, memorandum for Robert F. Parkard, Office of International Scientific Affairs, Department of State, "Thoughts on the Space Alien Race Question," 18 July 1963, File SP 16, Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59, National Archives. See also F. J. Sheridan, Chief, Washington Office, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division, "National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP)," 25 January 1965.

(69) Chamberlain, memorandum for DCI, "Evaluation of UFOs," 26 January 1965.

(70) See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 199 and US Air Force, Scientific Advisory Board, Ad Hoc Committee (O'Brien Committee) to Review Project BLUE BOOK, Special Report (Washington, DC: 1966). See also The New York Times, 14 August 1966, p. 70.

(71) See "Congress Reassured on Space Visits," The New York Times, 6 April 1966.

(72) Weber, letter to Col. Gerald E. Jorgensen, Chief, Community Relations Division, Office of Information, US Air Force, 15 August 1966. The Durant report was a detailed summary of the Robertson panel proceedings.

(73) See John Lear, "The Disputed CIA Document on UFOs," Saturday Review (September 3, 1966), p. 45. The Lear article was otherwise unsympathetic to UFO sightings and the possibility that extraterritorials were involved. The Air Force had been eager to provide Lear with the full report. See Walter L. Mackey, Executive Officer, memorandum for DCI, "Air Force Request to Declassify CIA Material on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO)," 1 September 1966.

(74) See Klass, UFOs, p. 40, Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 214 and Everet Clark, "Physicist Scores `Saucer Status,'" The New York Times, 21 October 1966. See also James E. McDonald, "Statement on Unidentified Flying Objects," submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 29 July 1968.

(75) Condon is quoted in Walter Sullivan, "3 Aides Selected in Saucer Inquiry," The New York Times, 8 October 1966. See also "An Outspoken Scientist, Edward Uhler Condon," The New York Times, 8 October 1966. Condon, an outgoing, gruff scientist, had earlier become embroiled in a controversy with the House Unamerican Activities Committee that claimed Condon was "one of the weakest links in our atomic security." See also Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 169-195.

(76) See Lundahl, memorandum for DDI, 7 February 1967.

(77) See memorandum for the record, "Visit of Dr. Condon to NPIC, 20 February 1967," 23 February 1967. See also the analysis of the photographs in memorandum for Lundahl, "Photo Analysis of UFO Photography," 17 February 1967.

(78) See memorandum for the record, "UFO Briefing for Dr. Edward Condon, 5 May 1967," 8 May 1967 and attached "Guidelines to UFO Photographers and UFO Photographic Information Sheet." See also Condon Committee, Press Release, 1 May 1967 and Klass, UFOs, p. 41. The Zaneville photographs turned out to be a hoax.

(79) See Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Bantam Books, 1969) and Klass, UFOs, p. 41. The report contained the Durant report with only minor deletions.

(80) See Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense, News Release, "Air Force to Terminate Project BLUEBOOK," 17 December 1969. The Air Force retired BLUEBOOK records to the USAF Archives at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. In 1976 the Air Force turned over all BLUEBOOK files to the National Archives and Records Administration, which made them available to the public without major restrictions. Some names have been withheld from the documents. See Klass, UFOs, p. 6.

(81) GSW was a small group of UFO buffs based in Phoenix, Arizona, and headed by William H. Spaulding.

(82) See Klass, UFOs, p. 8.

(83) See Wilson, letter to Spaulding, 26 March 1976 and GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859.

(84) GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859, p. 2.

(85) Author interview with Launie Ziebell, 23 June 1994 and author interview with OSI analyst, 21 July 1994. See also affidavits of George Owens, CIA Information and Privacy Act Coordinator; Karl H. Weber, OSI; Sidney D. Stembridge, Office of Security; and Rutledge P. Hazzard, DS&T; GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859 and Sayre Stevens, Deputy Director for National Foreign Assessment, memorandum for Thomas H. White, Assistant for Information, Information Review Committee, "FOIA Litigation Ground Saucer Watch," no date.

(86) See "CIA Papers Detail UFO Surveillance," The New York Times, 13 January 1979; Patrick Huyghe, "UFO Files: The Untold Story," The New York Times Magazine, 14 October 1979, p. 106; and Jerome Clark, "UFO Update," UFO Report, August 1979.

(87) Jerome Clark, "Latest UFO News Briefs From Around the World," UFO Update, August 1979 and GSW v. CIA Civil Action No. 78-859.

(88) See Wortman, memorandum for DCI Turner, "Your Question, `Are we in UFOs?' Annotated to The New York Times News Release Article," 18 January 1979.

(89) See GSW v. CIA Civil Action 78-859. See also Klass, UFOs, pp. 10-12.

(90) See John Brennan, memorandum for Richard Warshaw, Executive Assistant, DCI, "Requested Information on UFOs," 30 September 1993; Author interviews with OSWR analyst, 14 June 1994 and OSI analyst, 21 July 1994. This author found almost no documentation on Agency involvement with UFOs in the 1980s.

There is a DIA Psychic Center and the NSA studies parapsychology, that branch of psychology that deals with the investigation of such psychic phenomena as clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, and telepathy. The CIA reportedly is also a member of an Incident Response Team to investigate UFO landings, if one should occur. This team has never met. The lack of solid CIA documentation on Agency UFO-related activities in the 1980s leaves the entire issue somewhat murky for this period.

Much of the UFO literature presently focuses on contactees and abductees. See John E. Mack, Abduction, Human Encounters with Aliens (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1994) and Howard Blum, Out There (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990).

(91) See Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore, The Roswell Incident (New York: Berkeley Books, 1988); Moore, "The Roswell Incident: New Evidence in the Search for a Crashed UFO," (Burbank, California: Fair Witness Project, 1982), Publication Number 1201; and Klass, UFOs, pp. 280-281. In 1994 Congressman Steven H. Schiff (R-NM) called for an official study of the Roswell incident. The GAO is conducting a separate investigation of the incident. The CIA is not involved in the investigation. See Klass, UFOs, pp. 279-281; John H. Wright, Information and Privacy Coordinator, letter to Derek Skreen, 20 September 1993; and OSWR analyst interview. See also the made-for-TV film, Roswell, which appeared on cable TV on 31 July 1994 and Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 245-251.

(92) See John Diamond, "Air Force Probes 1947 UFO Claim Findings Are Down to Earth," 9 September 1994, Associated Press release; William J. Broad, "Wreckage of a `Spaceship': Of This Earth (and U.S.)," The New York Times, 18 September 1994, p. 1; and USAF Col. Richard L. Weaver and 1st Lt. James McAndrew, The Roswell Report, Fact Versus Fiction in New Mexico Desert (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995).

(93) See Good, Above Top Secret; Moore and S. T. Friedman, "Philip Klass and MJ-12: What are the Facts," (Burbank California: Fair-Witness Project, 1988), Publication Number 1290; Klass, "New Evidence of MJ-12 Hoax," Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 14 (Winter 1990); and Moore and Jaime H. Shandera, The MJ-12 Documents: An Analytical Report (Burbank, California: Fair-Witness Project, 1990), Publication Number 1500. Walter Bedell Smith supposedly replaced Forrestal on 1 August 1950 following Forrestal's death. All members listed were deceased when the MJ-12 "documents" surfaced in 1984. See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 258-268.

Dr. Larry Bland, editor of The George C. Marshall Papers, discovered that one of the so-called Majestic-12 documents was a complete fraud. It contained the exact same language as a letter from Marshall to Presidential candidate Thomas Dewey regarding the "Magic" intercepts in 1944. The dates and names had been altered and "Magic" changed to "Majic." Moreover, it was a photocopy, not an original. No original MJ-12 documents have ever surfaced. Telephone conversation between the author and Bland, 29 August 1994.

Gerald K. Haines is the National Reconnaissance Office historian.

Historical Document
Posted: Apr 14, 2007 04:51 PM
Last Updated: Jun 27, 2008 07:48 AM

SOURCE w/ links to photos cited: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/ufo.html



Hope the info doesn't "boggle" your mind.

PS: The paragraph in red is where the BFEE comes in.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
71. yes he could not identify it.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:15 PM
Dec 2014

and yes, most people believe in alien life somewhere in the universe.
your point?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
77. I saw something once in the air and I couldn't identify it either.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:24 PM
Dec 2014

and I believe in alien life.

try again!

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
85. He saw a UFO.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:36 PM
Dec 2014

He believed it could be alien nature. That's why he mentioned it. Unless you're an entomologist and know the genus of every bug you see flying around they are all UFO's. That's not what he was saying. He was saying that he saw something that could be an alien spacecraft.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
87. so?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:40 PM
Dec 2014

what's your point?
are you saying I can't say I don't believe he is right?
must I agree with everything he says?
you sure are funny!

BeanMusical

(4,389 posts)
174. UFO doesn't mean E.T, dear.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 04:09 AM
Dec 2014

All it means is that something in the sky seen by people was unidentified.

longship

(40,416 posts)
352. Jimmy Carter interviewed by the Skeptics Guide to the Universe.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 09:35 PM
Jan 2015

Yup. And he lays down exactly what he saw that night, and what he did not see (i.e., an alien spacecraft).

SGU host, Steven Novella drills down on the topic with President Carter.

So the UFO kooks can just kick sand. From the horses mouth, Jimmy denies what the UFO kooks are saying. In fact, in the interview Steve had to inform President Carter what the UFO kooks were saying about this so-called encounter. His grandson set up the interview because he was a regular SGU listener and the panel had cited Jimmy as a world leader who had endorsed UFO aliens in a previous episode. (At least according to those who believe such things)

The interview sets it all out and Carter explains clearly that he never thought it was an alien spaceship, counter to the UFO kook claims.

And Jimmy is a nuclear physicist and served on a nuke sub. He also has been an avid amateur astronomer.

SGU - Jimmy Carter (transcript)

Here is the SGU Home page where you can grab the interview in audio, unfortunately no direct link via Google. It is episode 105.

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe

Anybody who cites Jimmy Carter as a UFO space alien believer is a fucking liar, or is delusional. You choose.

My best regards.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
353. Carter UFO discussed on DU in 2004...
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:53 PM
Jan 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1956796

Note President Carter said he didn't know what he saw, but it was odd. Hope that doesn't boggle your mind, too fucking much, Longship.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
358. The interview is in 2007 and he says it wasn't an alien spacecraft.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:01 PM
Jan 2015

"And, and I have never thought there were extraterrestrial beings on a, on a sh...you know, ship from outer space or anything, but it was an unidentified flying object. It was obviously unidentified, it was flying and it was an object." - Jimmy Carter

'A very large military base - Fort Benning Army Base, where they plain...train paratroopers and do various kinds of, of military experiments - are in the general direction from which the light came, and most of us men, most of those were farmers or small businessmen who ordinarily are members of the Lions Club, just surmised that it might be a, some kind of a device that was being tested or something like that. It, we, we never heard anything." -Jimmy Carter

As to what conspiracy nuts were discussing about it in 2004, who cares? I'll trust what came from Jimmy Carter.

Hope that doesn't boggle your mind, too fucking much, Brad.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
363. Numbers are hard for you, too? 2004.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 07:22 PM
Jan 2015

While I will use smaller words, I can't change the numbers or the facts for you, zappaman.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
365. Apparently your reading comprehension needs works...
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 08:02 PM
Jan 2015

The interview longship linked to was in 2007.

Your thread was from 2004.

See? 2007.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
367. edhopper, zappaman, Longship, TammyWammy...
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 10:13 PM
Jan 2015

Please forgive me if I have a hard time keeping track of the Tag Team.

For your information, 2004 refers to a DU post. It's in the subject line of post 353.

I can see how you would want to make a major point about it.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
374. Sigh, yes I knew it was from 2004.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:03 AM
Jan 2015

I said:

Your thread was from 2004.


You didn't seem to understand zappaman's 2007 reference, which came from post 352. Carter did an interview with SGU in 2007.

longship

(40,416 posts)
375. But this ignores the undoubted fact that space aliens are not visiting Earth.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:17 AM
Jan 2015

And that fact is demonstrable.

And trotting out Jimmy Carter is just a sleezy argument from authority, just as putting forth police officers, airline pilots, military pilots, and all the other anecdotal evidence which, if one understands science, one should know is utterly worthless.

Plus, then there's all the made up bullshit flooding the Internet, like that idiot Billy Meier with his UFO dangling from a string and his alien babes "Asket and Nera" who somehow resemble pictures from a television set of dancers on a Dean Martin television series, which has been shown to be actually where the pic came from.

Before one can establish a new phenomenon (space aliens are visting Earth), one must establish what evidence suffices to support such a hypothesis. The problem is that the UFO believer kooks -- the only applicable description -- never step up to that line. They merely mine for anecdotes and anomalies and trot those out as evidence. Which they are not.

But here's what science says:

1. It is highly likely that life exists out there, even intelligent life.

2. The distances between intelligent life bearing planets is likely rather large. This goes way beyond the 4+ light years to the nearest star.

3. Travel between stars is an extremely costly endeavor, either in energy or time. (Take your pick; it's either one or the other and there are no saving throws.)

4. There are thousands of both amateur and professional astronomers looking at the sky 24 hours of the day. If there were alien space ships visiting Earth, certainly there would be evidence beyond the somehow always blurry disks -- yes, they are always disks for some bizarre reason -- imaged by the UFO kooks.

5. UFO culture seems to follow popular culture. Flying saucers came into vogue when a witness claimed that it "was shaped like a boomerang and moved like a saucer". It was reported as a flying saucer in the press in spite of the fact that the witness described it as boomerang shape, a media report fail that lives in popular culture to this day. There are many other cultural influences which have changed UFO culture, most importantly Spielberg's "Close Encounters".

Therefore, UFOs are a cultural effect, not a real one. Certainly it is interesting and fun to discuss. I like science fiction as much as many. But if there are space aliens visiting Earth, they certainly are not landing at the Ellipse on the Mall in Washington, DC. Why would they only show themselves to rural loser hicks?

BTW, there is nothing I would like better than for there to be proof of alien life in outer space -- as long as they do not bring a book entitled "To Serve Man". But science has had top people working on this very problem for many decades. Alas! There is zero evidence, no matter what the UFO kooks state.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
377. So your error smearing me is the only thing worth putting into your DU Journal?
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 11:25 AM
Jan 2015

Interesting. All your years on DU and this is the first thing you've written worth sharing?



Why does me writing about UFOs bother you so much?

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
162. Jury Results (<-- Juror #7)
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 12:17 AM
Dec 2014

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Zappaman, in this post, is all personal attack. He calls a DUers names, belittles him and calls him out by linking to a post from almost a year ago! Creepy and disruptive. It should be hidden.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:32 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Looks like a personal attack to me.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Every time Octafish tries to use his extensive knowledge of all things conspiracy, pointing out that he says he doesn't know how crop circles are formed WHEN THEY ARE BY PEOPLE, it should be thrown back at him.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: NOPE!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't like it? Then don't peddle woo bullshit on DU. An 'open mind' doesn't mean you fall for everything.


 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
282. Two questions
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 12:38 AM
Jan 2015

1) Are there any conspiracies you think might be possible? JFK? Lincoln assassination? Anything?

2) Wouldn't you love to be wrong on a big one, such as UFO's or 9/11? Or do you want none of them to come true?

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
37. I have never seen someone online as misguided as you are on so many topics......
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:15 PM
Dec 2014

With cameras EVERYWHERE now, why are there not more UFO sightings?

Why, because aliens have not and are not visiting earth! Simple explanation for most logical people.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
57. Where'd he say a word about aliens?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:56 PM
Dec 2014

"UFO" does not equal "alien craft" - it means "I saw something flying and i don't know what it was."

I've seen a UFO. I don't know what it really was - I can make several guesses, bu i just don't know. so a UFO it remains.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
203. More on the Cometa Report here
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:13 PM
Dec 2014

"Unless these people have insider information, which would have
yet to be revealed, their leaning toward the more paranoïd
trends of ufology is more than alarming. They consider for
instance Corso’s assertions to be possibly reliable much as they
do with Nick Pope’s views. Roswell is taken for granted and
North America is portrayed as the ‘Big Black Wolf’ who’s
debunking scheme, especially (but not only) over Roswell would
seem logical if we are to believe they have aquired otherworldly
objects. In one of the unsigned annexes, titled ‘The Roswell
Affair - Disinformation’, one can read the following statement:

"It seems the crash at Roswell happened on the 4th of July,
‘Independance Day’, at around 11h30 pm. The date and place
symbolise the power of America, henceforth the question: if the
crash is that of an extraterrestrial craft, could it really be
considered an accident or could it possibly be deliberate, thus
being some sort of a message and/or authenticating it?".

Considering the final destination of the report, which is said
on the front cover, to have been President Jacques Chirac and
Prime minister Lionel Jospin, and the rank of the people
involved, one can only be very alarmed by such statements which
will no doubt go against the goals COMETA wished to serve. One
understands, why other suggestions like the creation of a
gouvernmental office (yet another...) which would go hand in
hand with SEPRA, or re-funding of the latter will probably go
unaddressed."

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc603.htm

edhopper

(33,584 posts)
202. Since you dismiss
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:11 PM
Dec 2014

every UFO skeptic and debunker, not really.

I think the clip says it all for me.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
206. It does say it all.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:18 PM
Dec 2014

As for dismissing every UFO skeptic and debunker: Just because I dismiss the ones you know about doesn't mean I dismiss them all.

edhopper

(33,584 posts)
213. Just the prominent ones
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:28 PM
Dec 2014

Last edited Wed Dec 31, 2014, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

got it.

Tell me again how Klass and Sheaffer are idiots.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
215. Klass was a great person, as was Menzel.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:30 PM
Dec 2014

Don't know Sheaffer.

Where do I call them or anyone an "idiot"?

edhopper

(33,584 posts)
229. I thought you said this.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 04:39 PM
Dec 2014
"Philip Klass was a great writer and a professional skeptic and debunker."

Which is someone who goes about things in a most unscientific manner.

SOURCE: http://keyholepublishing.com/New%20Klass%20Letter%20Found.htm

OTOH: Stanton Friedman has approached the subject in a scientific manner.


http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2386270

And I believe you called him "a turd"

You preference for "experts" says it all, doesn't it, Mulder.


Scheaffer took up Klass' mantle, so you would probably dislike him too.

http://www.debunker.com/

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
289. Here's the post.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 11:27 AM
Jan 2015
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2391471

I wrote: "On DU, turds like that are called 'disruptor'" because Klass smeared Stanton Friedman in order to diminish his UFO research.

Here's an example of what Klass has stated on the record about Friedman:



Klass: I did pay Friedman $1,000 in 1989 after he successfully met one of my challenges -- but it was not a "bet" or a "wager" because it was risk-free to him. William Moore and Jaime Shandera, who were two of Friedman's partners in promoting the MJ-12 papers, claim that they discovered a memo in the National Archives purportedly written on July 14, 1954, by President Eisenhower's special assistant, Robert Cutler. The fact that Cutler had actually been out of the country on official business on the day the memo -- which, by the way, was unsigned -- allegedly was written indicated that it was counterfeit. But another suspicious aspect to me was that it had been typed in "pica" typeface rather than the smaller "elite" typeface that was used in all the Cutler office letters that I had obtained from the Eisenhower Library archives. So, thinking I had a sure hand, I offered to pay Friedman $100 for every genuine Cutler letter that he could find that was written on a pica-face typewriter -- up to a total of $1,000. To my surprise, Friedman was able to find about 20 such letters, and I promptly sent him my check. But, mind you, this was more than a year after he had refused my proposed "wager" which could have yielded him many thousands of dollars if he were able to demonstrate that the MJ-12 crashed-saucer documents were authentic -- but which could have cost him money if they proved counterfeit. The evidence that they are phony is overwhelming, as I've detailed in numerous articles.

SNIP...

Klass: As I turn 80, my fondest hope is that a genuine ET craft will land on our back patio and that I will be abducted. Hopefully, with the ETs' advanced technology and knowledge, they will be able to cure my spinal and walking problems and the damage to my vocal cord. Of course, I would have to pay Stanton Friedman $10,000 -- based on my long-standing wager that UFOs will never be proven real -- but I would expect to become wealthy from the royalties of a new book titled Why Me, ET? And instead of spending many hours each week "debunking" UFOs, I'll finally have time to watch some TV, go to the movies, and perhaps get to read a few non-UFO books for enjoyment. I even keep my videocam near my bed in the hopes of being able to film a beautiful "Nordic-type" ET extracting sperm "the old-fashioned way."

SOURCE: http://www.gpposner.com/klass_inter.html



Who's the turd, edhopper?

PS: And while he may be a turd, nowhere did I call him an "idiot."

edhopper

(33,584 posts)
290. Do you think
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 11:40 AM
Jan 2015

Last edited Fri Jan 2, 2015, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

the MJ-12 documents are real?


I see nothing wrong in the passages you posted.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
291. Do you think it's OK to smear someone to make a point?
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 01:23 PM
Jan 2015

I don't.

As for the MJ-12 documents, their story reads like a classic frame-up.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
301. He just wants you to get the his smear right.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:25 PM
Jan 2015

He called Klass a "turd" not an "idiot".
"Turd" is one of his favorite smears, BTW.

edhopper

(33,584 posts)
316. I just wondered how Klass
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:26 PM
Jan 2015

smeared Friedman in the quotes he posted.

I don't see it.

And I agreed I got the insult wrong, don't know why he still harps on that?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
317. Klass pooh poohs UFOs being alien in origin.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:29 PM
Jan 2015

Some people get upset by that, I guess.
Hence the name calling.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
348. No 'Conspiracy Theorist.' Stanton Friedman is a good man, a scientist.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 08:38 PM
Jan 2015

Worked in nuclear aircraft propulsion for GE, then took up his life's calling.



Science? Fiction?

For 41 years Stanton Friedman, SB'55, SM'56, has traveled the world with a simple message: UFOs are real.

BY LYDIALYLE GIBSON | UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MAGAZINE—SEPT–OCT/11

The kid knew his teacher was wrong. And looking back, there was never really a chance that he would let it go. It was the middle of the school year, 1943, and Mrs. Rose Gutkin was giving her fifth graders in Linden, New Jersey, an astronomy lesson: the sun, she explained, remains motionless, and all the planets orbit around it. But Stanton Friedman had just read in his encyclopedia that the whole solar system, including the sun, orbits the center of the galaxy. "At 12 miles a second," he says. "That impressed the heck out of me. I mean, that's fast."

So Friedman raised his hand, corrected his teacher, and got a dressing-down. The next day he brought the encyclopedia to school. "And she reluctantly agreed that, well, maybe that's the way it was."

Almost seven decades later, Friedman, SB'55, SM'56, still tells this story—in vivid, exuberant detail—to give people a sense of who he is: a methodical researcher, a steadfast debater, an investigator, a scholar. A scientist.

He's gotten used to proving his qualifications, convincing people that he's serious and, occasionally, that he's sane. Since 1970 Friedman, who half a lifetime ago worked as a nuclear physicist with a government security clearance, has been a full-time ufologist—that is, someone who studies unidentified flying objects. In national archives and presidential libraries, Friedman pores over declassified documents and scientific reports on UFO sightings and unexplained aerial events. At times his job is not unlike detective work: tracking down witnesses and collecting their testimony, chasing leads that turn up in his reading or that come to him, as they sometimes do, from someone confiding a name or a place or a piece of evidence. Friedman claims to be the "first civilian investigator" at Roswell, New Mexico, where many people believe that in July 1947 a spaceship crashed in the desert. Indeed, it was largely Friedman's digging, starting in the late 1970s, that brought widespread attention to Ros­well, an incident that had been all but forgotten.

His books have titles like Flying Saucers and Science: A Scientist Investigates the Mysteries of UFOs and Crash at Corona: The US Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of a UFO. His television appearances are myriad—Unsolved Mysteries, History Channel documentaries, network interviews on Nightline and CBS Sunday Morning. Friedman was a guest on three Larry King Live shows dedicated to UFOs, where he sat shoulder to shoulder with disbelievers and witnesses, wearing his usual dark suit and red pocket square, his wild wiry eyebrows flashing above excitable green eyes. "Physical trace cases, radar variable sightings—evidence!" he boomed during a 2007 show, squalling with UFO skeptic Michael Shermer. "You don't talk about evidence!"

But the cornerstone of Friedman's career is something much simpler: a series of slides and a stack of lecture notes. He spends months every year traveling to classrooms, conference halls, and auditoriums around the world, giving a lecture called "Flying Saucers ARE Real." The evidence is overwhelming, he says, that the planet is being visited by extraterrestrials, and that the US government is covering it up. And he'll debate anyone, anywhere, who argues otherwise.

CONTINUED...

http://mag.uchicago.edu/science-medicine/science-fiction



So when Klass called Stanton Friedman anything less than a scientist, or you call him a "Conspiracy Theorist," it is a way of demeaning, if not defaming, him.

edhopper

(33,584 posts)
349. I meant
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 08:42 PM
Jan 2015

you thinking the MJ-12n documents were a frame up. That conspiracy.

I was addressing you, not Friedman.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
350. Disinformation. It adds noise and drowns out the signal.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 08:54 PM
Jan 2015

Wreck what people think about and what is worth considering gets missed.

As for what UFOs represent, who knows? Unlike what the Condon Report found, I believe it's an area worth studying.

edhopper

(33,584 posts)
351. I didn't ask you to explain
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 09:08 PM
Jan 2015

Your silly conspiracy theory. I was just explaining that I was talking about you. Not Friedman.

I don't know if Friedman was a dupe or a fraud over these. Neither is flattering.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
354. No theory to it. That's what U-Chicago wrote about one of its graduates.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 04:08 PM
Jan 2015

As for what I post, I don't care what you think, edhopper.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
359. So does kooky conspiracy shit.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:02 PM
Jan 2015

It's been studied.
Including your silly picture of a hubcab that is supposed to be such a great picture.

What else you got?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
379. Why the need to smear, zappaman? I wrote what the science and witnesses reported.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 11:34 AM
Jan 2015

Show where what I wrote is theory. Show where I wrote that UFOs were alien spacecraft. You can't, can you?

I wrote we have UFO reports. Some of these reports include photographs, radar returns, and other physical evidence, including traces on the ground. I don't know what they are and have never suggested to you what I thought they were.

So, why do you need to make up stuff about me, zappaman? Do yo think it belittles me as a DUer? Go over what I wrote and show where I'm wrong or invented something. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong or learning something new. Do you think it changes what I wrote? Instead, it really makes you look afraid, among other things.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
2. This does not surprise me at all
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 03:24 PM
Dec 2014

I have been pointing out to UFO enthusiasts for years that a huge proportion of UFO sightings happened near military air bases. I have long thought that UFO sightings were often cases of our government testing classified technologies, even though this theory made a lot more sense than the alien visitation theories the people who really wanted to believe they were alien spacecraft were unwilling to accept anything other than the suggestion that these aircraft came from another planet. They shouted me down when I suggested they could be man made, so many people had convinced themselves that they were alien spacecraft that they were not willing to listen to alternative explanations.

I am glad to see the government admit what was actually happening, the people who still want to believe they were alien spacecraft will still believe that but at least the rest of us have a clear explanation now.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
4. Yeah, but....
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 03:27 PM
Dec 2014

Those US military planes were based on technology reverse-engineered from the UFO that crashed at Roswell, so it might as well be the same thing.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
25. All UFO reports are not like the one you are describing.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 06:20 PM
Dec 2014

Undoubtedly many UFO sightings are experimental or classified military aircraft. This tweet no where near explains the multiple unambiguous sightings of structured crafts described as the size of an aircraft carrier, football field, or a Walmart. Flying at extremely slow speeds then accelerating to super sonic speeds in an instant.

Whether the sightings are accurate or not they are definitely other worldly in nature and yet to be explained.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
29. There is actually a pretty simple explanation for those cases
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 06:31 PM
Dec 2014

People are full of shit.

Once people provide actual evidence of such claims then we can talk, but if there really were objects the size of football fields flying through the sky thousands of people would take notice and no doubt get some pictures. I have not seen any photographic evidence to support such claims.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
32. Evidence is available if you chose to look at it.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:02 PM
Dec 2014

Testimony of pilots, commercial and military, sworn military ground observers, and collaborating radar data is available. These are military and FAA documents. Is it bulletproof physical evidence? No. Is it evidence worth consideration? Most definitely.

The UFO phenomenon is unpredictable and transitory. There aren't a lot of photos of mid air collisions of airplanes either. It doesn't mean that they don't happen. And quite frankly and photograph released in the digital age would be suspect anyway. You would need multiple pictures from people unrelated to each other. A photograph in and of itself would be meaningless.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
46. The contributors to the Cometa Report disagree with you.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:33 PM
Dec 2014

What are your credentials?

General Bruno Lemoine, Air Force (former auditor of IHEDN)
Admiral Marc Merlo, (former auditor of IHEDN)
Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (former auditor of IHEDN)
General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (former auditor of IHEDN)
Denis Blancher, Chief National Police superintendent at the Ministry of the Interior
Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the National Corps des Mines and Research Director at the National Office of Aeronautical
Research (ONERA)
General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, armaments engineer
Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA at CNES
François Louange, President of Fleximage, specializing in photo analysis
General Joseph Domange, of the Air Force, general delegate of the Association of Auditors at IHEDN.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
47. I don't give a shit who they are.....
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:38 PM
Dec 2014

I can find doctors of geology and biology that say evolution is not real? Fucking believe that also?

You are really so clueless that you think because some people with credentials think aliens exist that means they do?

So if I can find MORE scientists that say aliens have not visited earth you will change your mind?

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
54. Calling BS on that claim.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:50 PM
Dec 2014

Please post a list of doctors of geology and biology that say evolution is not real.

Those associated with divinity schools don't count.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
79. Massive fail.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:29 PM
Dec 2014

Did you see where I said religious kooks were not acceptable examples? The only guy that isn't a religious kook doesn't deny evolution he just has a competing theory.

Nice try though.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
91. You are flat out lying.......
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:46 PM
Dec 2014

Your list are UFO nuts.

And you are flat out lying. 100%!

You said "those associated with divinity schools don't count". Who is associated with a divinity school? UCLA? Harvard?

None of them said 'Bob Jones University', if you even know what that is.

Wow, admitting you are wrong must be a chore for you.

So I said many people who do not believe in evolution have advanced degrees, you told me to prove it. But now you claim they are religious nuts, which is exactly what people who do not believe in evolution are!!!

Talk about arguing with an unarmed man!

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
98. So wrong.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:08 PM
Dec 2014

The divinity school comment was a catch all for all religious kooks. You're parsing words. The people you named are religious kooks with ulterior motives and agendas. If the contributors to the Cometa Report have competing motives or agendas now would be a good time to present that evidence. Otherwise your assertions are baseless.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
100. So you can disavow religious kooks but I must believe UFO kooks? Done with you! Pathetic. nt
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:12 PM
Dec 2014

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
106. Once again, what evidence do you have that these guys are kooks?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:23 PM
Dec 2014

Their credentials seem fairly impressive to me.

General Bruno Lemoine, Air Force (former auditor of IHEDN)
Admiral Marc Merlo, (former auditor of IHEDN)
Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (former auditor of IHEDN)
General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (former auditor of IHEDN)
Denis Blancher, Chief National Police superintendent at the Ministry of the Interior
Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the National Corps des Mines and Research Director at the National Office of Aeronautical
Research (ONERA)
General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, armaments engineer
Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA at CNES
François Louange, President of Fleximage, specializing in photo analysis
General Joseph Domange, of the Air Force, general delegate of the Association of Auditors at IHEDN.

Let's see, we have three generals, an admiral, a national Police superintendent, a PhD Lawyer, a couple of armaments engineers, one with a PhD, a chief engineer of aeronautical research, etc.

Exactly what in their credentials makes you believe them to be "kooky". Please be specific.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
123. Basing scientific concliusions on religous belief.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:43 PM
Dec 2014

If members of the Cometa Report are basing their conclusions on something other than the data they analyzed now would be a good time to present that evidence.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
240. So I did some research and found evidence that there was no General Bruno Lemoine in the Air Force
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 02:03 PM
Jan 2015

You can see a full list of current and retired Air Force Generals on their web site, and there is no Bruno Lemoine listed. Google turns up virtually nothing about him aside from the COMETA Report.

Can you prove this person who you have been citing as a credible source even exists?

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/AlphabeticalBiographyIndex/tabid/286/Indexlastname/L/Page/4/Default.aspx

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
244. Yes, it is pretty embarrassing for you
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 06:31 PM
Jan 2015

So can you provide me any information on this guy's background? You have cited him as a credible source multiple times in this thread so I would like you to show me some information on him, because I can't find anything.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
245. Uh....no it's not.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 06:38 PM
Jan 2015

Try looking a little harder. I don't want to embarrass you anymore than it's absolutely necessary.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
246. I Googled a few of the names on your list
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 06:47 PM
Jan 2015

There is virtually no background information on any of them that I can find. With these steller credentials you claim they have you would think that it would not be too difficult to find some of their accomplishments through Google, but there is nothing.

These are your sources so if you want me to believe them you should be able to tell me some basic information about them, so please give me a link because I have already tried searching and I have found so little that I am not even convinced that the names on your list are real people.

Please provide a link to prove there really was a General in the Air Force named Bruno Lemoine, if you want me to believe he is a credible source then you should be able to find at least some basic background info on him such as when he served in the Air Force.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
264. I've already embarrassed you twice.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:36 PM
Jan 2015

Your namesake is a UFO enthusiast and that unfortunate John Alexander incident.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
252. No I just want you to prove the people you are citing actually exist
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:02 PM
Jan 2015

If you are having a difficult time doing that it tells me a whole lot about the credibility of your sources.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
255. They exist. Trust me.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:19 PM
Jan 2015

And if you don't believe me, prove me wrong. I have offered a published report. You have offered nothing beyond baseless conspiracy theories.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
265. Except a published report
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:41 PM
Jan 2015

by the following participants with VERY impressive credentials.

General Bruno Lemoine, Air Force (former auditor of IHEDN)
Admiral Marc Merlo, (former auditor of IHEDN)
Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (former auditor of IHEDN)
General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (former auditor of IHEDN)
Denis Blancher, Chief National Police superintendent at the Ministry of the Interior
Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the National Corps des Mines and Research Director at the
National Office of Aeronautical Research (ONERA)
General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, armaments engineer
Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA at CNES
François Louange, President of Fleximage, specializing in photo analysis
General Joseph Domange, of the Air Force, general delegate of the Association of Auditors at IHEDN.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
266. So what are Bruno Lemoine's credentials?
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:44 PM
Jan 2015

You keep insisting the people on this list have VERY impressive credentials, but you have yet to tell us what those credentials are.

So tell us what are Bruno Lemoine's credentials?

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
276. Oh I don't know.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 10:34 PM
Jan 2015

Maybe because he was a General in the Air Force?

Who do you think should be investigating the UFO phenomenon? Dog catchers?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
285. What years specifically?
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 02:00 AM
Jan 2015

I have searched for records of an Air Force general with his name and there is none listed.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
250. Help us out please.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 07:53 PM
Jan 2015

Just give us any link with any background on these guys.
Why is that so hard to do?
We are having difficulties and are bowing to your knowledge.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
261. I have an idea.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:32 PM
Jan 2015

Do your own debunking. It's much more entertaining. That last attempt was pretty good quoting a Uri Gellar fanboy. Looking forward to you referencing Miss Cleo's scathing take down of the Cometa Report from the Psychic Hotline.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
262. thanks for the kicks with your bullshit.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:34 PM
Jan 2015

come back when you can back anything up.
we'll be here!

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
271. This is beyond lame.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 09:12 PM
Jan 2015

Your first link is to a review of an unrelated book. Your second link mentions the Cometa Report but offers no review of the contents of that report or it's conclusions. A big nothing burger.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
269. I don't have to back anything up.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:58 PM
Jan 2015

There is a published report for anybody to read. Since you can't debunk it or convince me to debunk for you, you are now claiming I can't back it up.

Here it is. If you have a problem with it state it loud and clear. Own it. Stop being wishy washy. Claim that it's hoax or a fraud or the participants are fictitious. Own it.

https://archive.org/details/TheCometaReport

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
48. I'll see your 10 guys and raise you the 1000s who don't think we are being visited by aliens. n/t
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:40 PM
Dec 2014

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
64. Please name them and their associated reports and studies.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:06 PM
Dec 2014

Off the cuff snarky remarks are cute but hardly a substitute for analyzed data.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
78. you would think guys who think the BFEE controls everything would be thrilled to know the CIA
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:26 PM
Dec 2014

now admits most of the sightings were due to them.
how ironic that they don't...

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
89. Like I said. Analyzed data.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:43 PM
Dec 2014

Carl Sagan was a gifted astrophysicist but not so good that his proclamations absent analyzed data carries anymore weight than a warm bucket of spit. His off the cuff musings are interesting but no substitute analyzed data. He has done absolutely no research, formal or otherwise in this field and it shows.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
101. I'm no professor. I defer to experts who have analyzed data.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:14 PM
Dec 2014

Like these guys:

General Bruno Lemoine, Air Force (former auditor of IHEDN)
Admiral Marc Merlo, (former auditor of IHEDN)
Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (former auditor of IHEDN)
General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (former auditor of IHEDN)
Denis Blancher, Chief National Police superintendent at the Ministry of the Interior
Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the National Corps des Mines and Research Director at the National Office of Aeronautical
Research (ONERA)
General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, armaments engineer
Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA at CNES
François Louange, President of Fleximage, specializing in photo analysis
General Joseph Domange, of the Air Force, general delegate of the Association of Auditors at IHEDN.

Can you offer any competing studies or reports that come to different conclusions?

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
92. OK Einstein.....
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:47 PM
Dec 2014

List your BEST proof that aliens have visited earth. Maybe a peer reviewed paper form Science or Nature. If you know what those are.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
128. Well then name the study.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:52 PM
Dec 2014

I've been here and waiting. I've presented a study published by serious professionals with impressive credentials. From you lots of ad hominem and snarky remarks. All sizzle and no steak.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
134. The FAA does not name their studies
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:04 PM
Dec 2014

I can assure you however that the FAA does study what types of aircraft are flying through our skies.

I noticed you completely avoided my question. What specific data involving UFOs do you want studied that has not yet been studied and where can that data be found?

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
141. If the study doesn't have a name.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:19 PM
Dec 2014

Then it's not study.

How about a study on The Phoenix Lights and the Stephenville sightings. Both recent unambiguous sightings of structured craft from multiple, unrelated, credible witnesses including pilots and sworn law enforcement. The UFOs were reportedly the size of a of sevaral B2 bombers or a Walmart.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
146. So what scientific data exists to verify these accounts?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:28 PM
Dec 2014

If you want to do a scientific study you have to have data, eyewitness testimony does not provide nearly enough data to conduct a scientific study.

Please list any physical evidence relating to these alleged sightings that you believe can be studied using scientific methods.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
151. Eyewitness testimony is used all the time scientific study.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:39 PM
Dec 2014

It's not used to form rock solid conclusions absent repeatable experimentation but eyewitness observation is part of the scientific process.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
153. No, science is not based exclusively on eyewitness accounts
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:56 PM
Dec 2014

In fact eyewitness accounts are considered to be extremely unreliable in scientific research.

Anyone can listen to eyewitness accounts, what insight do you think a scientific study could provide us from eyewitness testimony that we can't get by listening to the testimony ourselves?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
119. UFOs are studied quite extensively
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:39 PM
Dec 2014

Don't think the FAA just ignores unidentified objects flying around in the sky. Air traffic is very tightly controlled and they are going to do everything they can to identify anything they see flying through our skies. If you have any additional data air traffic controllers need to investigate any unknown aircraft I am sure they would be happy if you provided that data to them.

If you don't have that data however then I would ask what data exists that has not been analyzed yet but needs to be. If you want further studies on UFOs then please tell us specifically what aspect of UFOs you want studied and how you would go about obtaining data for such a study.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
103. You do realize that Sagan focused much of his research on the search for extra-terrestrial life?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:17 PM
Dec 2014

Now I know you are going to come back at me and say that the search for extraterrestrial life is not the same as the study of UFOs, but if Carl Sagan had the data on UFOs he most certainly would have analyzed it. The problem is the data does not exist, there is no scientific data on UFOs. UFOs are unidentified flying objects, and if they have not been identified it is quite difficult to get data on what they are. Those who claim they are extraterrestrial don't actually have any proof that they are extraterrestrial, they just make the assumption because they don't know what else it could be. Real scientists don't make such assumptions.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
121. Carl Sagan did not analyze UFO data.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:40 PM
Dec 2014

That wasn't his job. It wasn't his area of expertise. If you have evidence he sought UFO evidence and couldn't find any please present that evidence now. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke. The contributors to the Cometa Report collected data, analyzed it, and published a conclusion. Sagan did none of this. His opinions on the matter are baseless and pure speculation.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
124. You apparently have not read much Sagan
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:44 PM
Dec 2014

Sagan wrote extensively about UFOs, read "The Demon Haunted World" as he covers the topic quite thoroughly in that book. He may not have reached the conclusion you wanted him to reach, but he certainly researched UFOs.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
133. What part of "analyzed data" don't you understand.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:03 PM
Dec 2014

Writing about UFO folk lore and actually analyzing UFO data are two different things. Sagan was not, has never been, a UFO researcher. He has never published scientific papers regarding UFO's. His opinions on UFO's are based on feelings. Not data.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
139. Please explain to me how the people on your list are more reputable than Sagan
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:14 PM
Dec 2014

Sagan is extremely well regarded in the field of science, to say he based his work on feelings and not data is absurd. Sagan searched all over for scientific data on UFOs but no scientific data existed to suggest UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin.

You keep touting your list of names but I have my doubts that you even know any background on them aside from their professions. I will give you a chance to prove me wrong however.

Pick just one name on your list and explain to me why you believe that person has better scientific credentials than Carl Sagan. Please provide background information on the person, peer reviewed works that they have published, awards and accolades they have received, and tell me why their credentials are superior to Sagan's. Thank you.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
149. The members of the Cometa Report collected data,
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:33 PM
Dec 2014

analyzed it, and published a report. If Sagan has done anything similar you'd had been crowing about it already. He didn't. If he did there would a be report about all the places he looked and all the evidence he didn't find. That doesn't exist because he didn't do it.

Once again, it's not so much about Sagan's credentials versus those on the Cometa Report. It's about who collected data, analyzed it, and published a conclusion.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
152. You clearly know nothing about Sagan
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:42 PM
Dec 2014

Here is a book in which Sagan does exactly what you claim he has never done...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle/dp/0345409469

I highly recommend that book by the way, even if you don't agree with Sagan he definitely explains his position on UFOs very well and backs it up with science.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
156. How many times do I have to repeat this.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 11:24 PM
Dec 2014

Sagan was not a UFO researcher. He did not collect or analyze data. His view was that habitable planets are too far away so UFO's don't exist. Nice theory but not based on collected and analyzed data. His theory precluded gathering and analyzing data. He already had his mind made up. He didn't interview witnesses, visit alleged landing sites, extract and test soil samples, or analyze photos. His view is the speed of light is 186,000 mph and humans live about 70 years so UFO's don't exist because the nearest planet is more than a human lifetime away.

Having a theory and actually doing research are two different animals.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
157. Have you read The Demon Haunted World?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 11:30 PM
Dec 2014

I am assuming you have not because you keep repeating things about Sagan that are blatantly untrue and if you had read the book you would know they were untrue. Sagan did extensive research on UFOs, just because he did not reach the conclusions you wanted him to reach does not mean he ignored available data.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
159. How many eyewitnesses did he interview?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 11:48 PM
Dec 2014

How many landing sites did he visit? How much physical evidence did he analyze? Expressing opinions is not research. The Demon Haunted World is about folklore and skepticism. Not UFO research.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
177. The point is you are claiming the book lacks data when you don't even know what is in it
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 08:45 AM
Dec 2014

The point is you don't know jack shit about Carl Sagan.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
184. If you are claiming Sagan has done UFO research.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 01:32 PM
Dec 2014

Put up or shut up. Lounging around in turtle neck sweaters and tweed jackets with leather patches on the elbows pontificating to oneself is not the same as collecting and analyzing data. How many people did he interview? How much evidence did he analyze? This is pretty basic stuff. So far you seem to think just by mentioning his name your providing something yet you can't name one thing he's done other than offer an opinion.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
225. I already linked you to the book, read it
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 03:48 PM
Dec 2014

Don't try to claim a book you have never read does not have the research you are looking for. Sagan's book is very well sourced, there is extensive documentation to back up his views in it. If you read it you would know this, but instead you try to claim the book is merely his opinion despite the fact that it is very well researched and he cites numerous sources.

You still have not answered the challenge I gave you earlier however. If you think any of the authors of the non-scientific "study" you keep citing have more credibility than Sagan then tell us why.

Pick just one person from your list and tell me why their credentials are better than Sagan's. Tell me some information on them beyond their titles, tell me about the peer reviewed articles they have written, awards they have received, universities they have taught at. If you think any of them are more credible than Sagan then provide some biographical information to tell us why.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
227. Yeah, I am pretty convinced he does not know anything about the people on his list
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 03:58 PM
Dec 2014

I will give him a chance to prove me wrong however, if he thinks any of the people on the list have more credibility than Sagan, who happens to be one of the most respected figures in the scientific community in the last century, well then he can tell us how his people's credentials beat Sagan.

So far all I have heard is "they looked at data", as if Sagan the co-founder of SETI and the person who basically served as the spokesperson for the scientific community during his lifetime did not look at any data.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
236. Try Googling General Bruno Lemoine
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 01:36 PM
Jan 2015

So I tried to do some research on the people on the COMETA report list and there is so little information on them that I am starting to wonder if they are even real people.

You would think that someone who rose to the rank of General in the Air Force would have some articles on Google related to his service in the Air Force but I found nothing, virtually everything with this guy's name in it was related to the COMETA report.

There was only one thing I was able to find about a Bruno Lemoine in military service. He did not serve in the Air Force however and he was not a general, he was a soldier that served under Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802.

Now maybe someone can find some additional info to prove to me that there really was a Bruno Lemoine that served as a General in the Air Force, but I can't even find anything outside of the COMETA report that even refers to such a person. It appears to me that his name was pulled out of French history and cited as an author if the COMETA report even though he probably doesn't actually exist.

If someone can prove to me this person actually exists I will listen to them, but until then I have to assume the list of names is a fraud.

https://books.google.com/books?id=PDSNjYm7yXgC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=general+bruno+lemoine&source=bl&ots=8lJPw17fRo&sig=VJpRpXeszTFTpf5d3oPkbdXZvC4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=noGlVJ2fIoSsyATwiYGgAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=general%20bruno%20lemoine&f=false

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
237. I tried with 3 or 4 of them and gave up
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 01:37 PM
Jan 2015

Hopefully, our poster will come back and give us more information!

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
238. I found a Wikipedia page that is supposed to list all the Generals who served in the US Air Force
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 01:56 PM
Jan 2015

There is no one by the name of Bruno Lemoine on the list, either Wikipedia missed a person or the guy was not a General.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Air_Force_generals

The guy may not exist but don't you dare question his credentials, he has obviously studied scientific data a lot more than Carl Sagan has.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
241. It appears that not only Wikipedia forgot to mention him, the Air Force did as well
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 02:09 PM
Jan 2015

He is not listed among current or retired Generals on the Air Force's web site either.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/AlphabeticalBiographyIndex/tabid/286/Indexlastname/L/Page/4/Default.aspx

To be fair however the Air Force does not list people who served under Napoleon in 1802, and if one of Napoleon's soldiers were still alive today I am sure he would be an Air Force General by now. Therefore he obviously knew more than Carl Sagan ever did.

panader0

(25,816 posts)
318. When my dad, an Air Force Lt. Col., was stationed at Hickam AFB in Hawaii,
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:34 PM
Jan 2015

we lived next door to a Col. Lenfest. He graduated from West Point. He later went on to become a two star general. He is not listed on that web site either.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
247. In the time you to took to write all that
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 07:18 PM
Jan 2015

you could have simply stated what Sagan bases his beliefs on. You know you've lost the argument when you can't even the describe what you're defending in a few sentences. You can only assert some important guy said it, so it must be true. And then when pressed on what the guy actually said can only demand someone read a certain book.

I get this all the time from right wing conservatives.

RWNJ: The Earth is 6,000 years old.

Me: Why?

RWNJ: Cuz Jesus said so.

Me: What did he say?

RWNJ: It's all right there in the Bible.

Me: Yeah but what did say?

RWNJ: Jesus said it! I believe it! And that's that! Read your Bible if you want to know what I'm talking about!

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
248. Sagan based his belief on decades of research
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 07:33 PM
Jan 2015

You may be surprised to know that when Sagan was young he believed that UFOs may have been extraterrestrial in origin, it fascinated him so much that he became a scientist. He was an advocate for scientific research into UFOs, he studied them extensively but eventually concluded there was no evidence to support claims that they were of extraterrestrial origin.

While the complete lack of evidence convinced him we had never been visited by extraterrestrials, he never gave up the search for extraterrestrial life. He co-founded SETI and sent the first radio signal into space to attempt to contact civilizations on other planets. While no contact has been made yet, this project continues after his death and SETI is still using methods he pioneered to search for extraterrestrial life.

So now I told you a bit about Sagan's research, now you can tell me about Bruno Lemoine's. I'm waiting.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
253. How many times do I have to repeat this.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:10 PM
Jan 2015

What did Sagan's research consist of? What research are you referring to? The topic is UFOs. Not whether Sagan ever did research related to space. If you're going to invoke Sagan's name you're going to have to point out why he's relevant and why his opinion matters. Basics like how What kind of government documents has he reviewed? How many UFO witnesses he's interviewed? How much physical evidence he's analyzed? How many reports has he published? You have provided absolutely nothing regarding Sagan's research of UFOs. Having an opinion is not research.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
260. If you don't want to read his book then you can read his Wikipedia entry
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:31 PM
Jan 2015
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

There is a whole section at that link specifically related to his research in UFOs.

You keep demanding I provide you info on Sagan and I have been providing you info.

Now can you please return the favor and provide me the information I am seeking about who Bruno Lemoine is?

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
272. From your own link...
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 09:32 PM
Jan 2015
Sagan's interest in UFO reports prompted him on August 3, 1952, to write a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson to ask how the United States would respond if flying saucers turned out to be extraterrestrial.[7]:51–52 He later had several conversations on the subject in 1964 with Jacques Vallée.[94] Though quite skeptical of any extraordinary answer to the UFO question, Sagan thought scientists should study the phenomenon, at least because there was widespread public interest in UFO reports.

Stuart Appelle notes that Sagan "wrote frequently on what he perceived as the logical and empirical fallacies regarding UFOs and the abduction experience. Sagan rejected an extraterrestrial explanation for the phenomenon but felt there were both empirical and pedagogical benefits for examining UFO reports and that the subject was, therefore, a legitimate topic of study."[95]


This backs up what I've been saying all along. Sagan has done no research, analyzed no data, or published any reports on UFOs. Having "several conversations" is not research. In addition Sagan agrees with me that UFOs is a legitimate topic worth study.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
273. The link actually says more than just that and the book says even more yet
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 09:59 PM
Jan 2015

I am still waiting for you to give me any info on Bruno Lemoine's background. If you think he has more credibility than Sagan tell me why.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
274. I've already told you why.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 10:27 PM
Jan 2015

First of all the report encompasses the contribution of a group of people. It doesn't rest on the credibility of one person. The premise of your argument is flawed from the get go.

Secondly you keep tap dancing around Sagan's alleged UFO research. You keep claiming to be a Sagan expert but cannot describe the most basic outline of his supposed research. It would take one sentence. "Sagan's research consisted of X, Y, and Z"

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
279. You do realize the COMETA report is not a scientific report don't you?
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 11:06 PM
Jan 2015

It was not peer reviewed and the data was not analyzed using the scientific method.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
286. Yes, there is a lot of comic value in it I will concede that point
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 02:03 AM
Jan 2015

I have found some value in laughing at the COMETA report.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
300. And you completely abandoned your argument.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:25 PM
Jan 2015

If the Cometa Report is fake or invalid you've failed to provide one shred of evidence to support that position.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
303. I think that pointing out there is no background info on any of your sources...
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:31 PM
Jan 2015

Pretty much destroys your entire argument. You rested your entire case on the credibility of the authors but you are completely unable to even provide any background info on who these authors are. You have completely embarrassed yourself in this thread.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
307. It is a public report that has existed for years.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:45 PM
Jan 2015

It's not my job to do your debunking for you. The report is the evidence. If you have evidence that says otherwise now would be a good time to present it. Otherwise you are spinning an unfounded conspiracy theory.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
310. There are lots of unscientific reports on many issues
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:06 PM
Jan 2015

Just because it is a report does not mean it is accurate.

You obviously don't even know anything about the people who wrote the report because you can not provide any background info on them, so your entire argument relies on demanding people accept everything they say based on their job title, or at least what they claim their job title is because you can't even provide evidence the people who you claim are generals actually are generals.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
295. Because a whole bunch of seemingly fake people with fake credentials signed it.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:09 PM
Jan 2015

since you can't link to any of them...

and this kneeslapper

"It seems the crash at Roswell happened on the 4th of July,
‘Independance Day’, at around 11h30 pm. The date and place
symbolise the power of America, henceforth the question: if the
crash is that of an extraterrestrial craft, could it really be
considered an accident or could it possibly be deliberate, thus
being some sort of a message and/or authenticating it?".

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
297. Either they are fake or not.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:14 PM
Jan 2015

If you can debunk them now would be a good time. Put up or shut up. Man up or stand down. Sh#t or get off the pot.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
298. Uh huh
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:21 PM
Jan 2015

it's on you to show who they are since you are sooo impressed.

and this is bullshit too...

"It seems the crash at Roswell happened on the 4th of July,
‘Independance Day’, at around 11h30 pm. The date and place
symbolise the power of America, henceforth the question: if the
crash is that of an extraterrestrial craft, could it really be
considered an accident or could it possibly be deliberate, thus
being some sort of a message and/or authenticating it?".

so, are you getting off the pot?

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
306. The report shows who they are.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:40 PM
Jan 2015

It's been out for years. It's a public report. It's been no secret in the UFO community which includes the debunking community. No. It's not my job to do your debunking for you.

What you quoted doesn't make sense. It's completely out of context. Who said it? Regarding what? What point is being made? You're just copying and pasting anything.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
313. No it doesn't.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:20 PM
Jan 2015

Just some random names that no one, including yourself, can find any info on.

I heard Brigadier General Dick Hertz also signed it...

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
324. Who said I can't find info on them?
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:09 PM
Jan 2015

There's a published report right here. It's been public for years. There names are right on it. In your massive fail to debunk the report you posted a convoluted, out of context quote/review. Last time I checked sane people don't review hoaxes. Your posting of the review is a tacit admission that the review and the contributors are legitimate. Otherwise the review would consist of "no report exists and the contributors are fake".

https://archive.org/details/TheCometaReport

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
328. yes, we saw the names.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:13 PM
Jan 2015

just going in circles now, are you?
tell us who these people are...not just names and ranks.
for bonus points, tell us any papers they've written on UFOs and what kind of studies they have done.

you would, if you could.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
299. More sillliness
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:23 PM
Jan 2015

Unless these people have insider information, which would have
yet to be revealed, their leaning toward the more paranoïd
trends of ufology is more than alarming. They consider for
instance Corso’s assertions to be possibly reliable much as they
do with Nick Pope’s views. Roswell is taken for granted and
North America is portrayed as the ‘Big Black Wolf’ who’s
debunking scheme, especially (but not only) over Roswell would
seem logical if we are to believe they have aquired otherworldly
objects. In one of the unsigned annexes, titled ‘The Roswell
Affair - Disinformation’, one can read the following statement:

"It seems the crash at Roswell happened on the 4th of July,
‘Independance Day’, at around 11h30 pm. The date and place
symbolise the power of America, henceforth the question: if the
crash is that of an extraterrestrial craft, could it really be
considered an accident or could it possibly be deliberate, thus
being some sort of a message and/or authenticating it?".

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc603.htm

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
302. So you've finally accepted the fact that the report is legitimate
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:30 PM
Jan 2015

and the contributors are genuine?

Thanks for admitting you've been wrong all along.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
304. Nope.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:32 PM
Jan 2015

Still awaiting for you to tell us why we should trust the guys who signed.
Who they are, their expertise and so on.

And the report is a waste of paper.
As I demonstrated.

Thanks for the laughs though!

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
309. No. It's on you to prove they are untrustworthy.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:51 PM
Jan 2015

You tried once and all you could come up with is some Uri Gellar fanboy. Notice I didn't demand you prove the trustworthiness of John Alexander. I debunked his Silva Mind Controlling, remote viewing ass in less than five minutes.

Your premise is since I can't debunk this report, and you won't debunk it for me. I win! That lame dude. Really lame.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
311. I think I learned a new debate tactic from you
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:16 PM
Jan 2015

I am going to start citing General John H. Douchebag to back up all my arguments, he is a four star general with very strong credentials and I don't have to provide any background info on him because he is a General in the Air Force and his job title is enough for you to know he is correct.

General Douchebag says the COMETA report is a lie. Now you must either prove General Douchebag doesn't exist or accept his word as the absolute truth, after all he wrote a report and reports don't lie.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
329. Lame. Lame. Lame.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:13 PM
Jan 2015

Do you a have public and published report citing Gen. Douchebag? No you don't. Instead of making up fantasy scenarios to argue about why don't you address your failure to bring anything to table beyond your conspiracy theories?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
336. Yes there is a published report from General Douchebag
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:20 PM
Jan 2015

You will have to find it yourself though, I am not going to do your debunking for you.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
312. How about you try to show who they are?
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:19 PM
Jan 2015

The fact that you can't is hilarious.
And John Alexander is a loony UFO guy who thinks the COMETA Report is even too loony for him!!!



Get back to us when you have any information about the COMETA Report and why anyone should care.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
321. If John Alexander is so loony why did you post his opinions?
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:57 PM
Jan 2015

Oh yeah, because you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. I posted a published report from high ranking officials. You on other hand have brought nothing to the table except an opinion from some Uri Gellar fanboy.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
323. Sorry you don't get why.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:05 PM
Jan 2015

I've already explained to you that if the report is too loony for a loony like John Alexander, what does that tell you?

Take your time, give it some thought, maybe phone a friend, and then get back to us.

This is beyond embarrassing at this point.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
333. So your position is John Alexander is a loony
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:18 PM
Jan 2015

and that's why he should be trusted? You're really embarrassing yourself with this line of logic.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
337. Yes, he is a loony.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:21 PM
Jan 2015

No, he shouldn't be trusted but it is funny that even HE finds the Cometa report too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

Do try and keep up.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
342. You didn't think that when you orignally posted his nonsense.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:44 PM
Jan 2015

Until it was pointed out to you. You're over the map here. You've got the goal posts on roller blades.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
343. Actually that's why I posted it!
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:50 PM
Jan 2015

Sorry it went over your head.

So stop stalling already and tell us why we should bow down to these guys like you are.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
345. "Yeah...that's why I posted it"
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 06:17 PM
Jan 2015

"Just as I was telling my wife....uh...er... Morgan Fairchild! Yeah! That's the ticket!"

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
346. I'll try to keep things simpler for you next time.
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 06:22 PM
Jan 2015

And let us know when Morgan lets you use the computer again.
Then maybe you can tell us the credentials of the guys who signed the COMETA Report and why their signing of it is so impressive.

I won't hold my breath.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
74. LOL, you don't get it.....
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:21 PM
Dec 2014

The proof is not on the deniers, it is ONLY on the people making the claim!

So I can say "I met an alien" and you can say "no you did not" and then under your warped logic I can say "Prove I didn't meet an alien"

Get it yet??

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
51. There were many people with impressive credentials telling us Saddam had WMDs as well
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:44 PM
Dec 2014

Just because you can list some people with a lot of letters behind their names does not mean those people are trustworthy, we have been lied to by military officials on many occasions.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
95. Do you have any evidence they are not trustworthy?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:55 PM
Dec 2014

Comparing BFEE and Darth Cheney to the contributors of the Cometa Report is specious at best. You don't have to be Fellini to figure out the fix is in when Halliburton gets showered in no bid contracts from the Bush administration. What could possibly be to gain from the Cometa Report accept what it states?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
96. Those making the claims need to convince me that they are trustworthy
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:02 PM
Dec 2014

The letters at the end of their name do nothing to convince me that they are credible sources. It is not my job to prove they are not credible, they are making the claims and they need to convince me that their claims are credible.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
105. The COMETA Report is a joke.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:22 PM
Dec 2014

Guess you weren't let in on that.

While UFO believers have held for decades that “disclosure” was just around the corner, the modern Disclosure movement was savvy enough to realize that “Disclosure” would need a little push. On May 9, 2001, Dr. Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project held a press conference in the National Press Club in Washington, DC, featuring twenty people who have made claims of a widespread government conspiracy to conceal the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. After a brief flurry of sensationalist news reports, the mainstream news media simply ignored what Greer and his pals had to say, and nobody followed through on it. The Disclosure Project folks expected that enterprising news reporters would follow up on their leads, and by diligent investigation blow the whole government UFO conspiracy sky-high through diligent investigation. However, it didn’t happen, because no experienced reported believed there was anything in the UFO conspiracy claims worth following up.

Enter Leslie Kean (pronounced “Kane”), a reporter working for Pacifica Radio station KPFA in Berkeley, California, widely known as the radical radio voice of the Peoples’ Republic of Berkeley. Leslie Kean is the reporter that the Disclosure movement has been waiting for. She says her initiation into the ranks of UFO proponents occurred in 1999 when she was given a copy of a French UFO report called COMETA, which is usually described as a report commissioned by defense officials, but was in fact written by a private group. Like Bentham upon reading Hume, the “scales fell from [her] eyes,” and she suddenly realized the reality of UFOs as unknown flying vehicles. (Although her fellow UFO proponent John Alexander described the COMETA report as “an embarrassment… unsubstantiated data from questionable sources” in his book UFOs Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities.) Kean has no doubts whatsoever that the government is hiding something really big from us concerning UFOs, although she professes (a bit disingenuously) to be agnostic on the question of whether they are extraterrestrial.

Of the COMETA report, she says “all conventional explanations of something natural or man-made had been eliminated by the authors and their associated teams of experts, and yet these objects were observed at close range by pilots, tracked on radar, and officially photographed.” Really? Among the COMETA cases supposedly having no possible explanation were Lakenheath, UK, 1956 – except that this case is the subject of Chapter 21 of UFOs Explained (Random House) by the famous UFO skeptic and late fellow of CSI-COP, Philip J. Klass. What does Kean say about Klass’ demolishing of the “evidence” presented? Nothing. Klass’ name does not appear in the book’s index. Kean writes a chapter on “The Roots of UFO Debunking in America,” but she does not even mention Klass, Menzel, CSICOP, or anyone associated with it. To her, it’s all the fault of the government: the United States Air Force (USAF), and especially the once-secret 1953 Robertson Panel of the CIA.

much more at http://debunker.com/texts/kean.htm

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
154. John Alexander? Seriously? You're quoting John Alexander???
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 11:00 PM
Dec 2014

Last edited Tue Dec 30, 2014, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The state representative for Silva Mind Control? That John Alexander??? Remote viewing enthusiast! That John Alexander???

Here he is with one the great scientific minds of our time..........Uri Gellar.



Before you start impugning the reputations of serious professionals by quoting grifters you should know who you're talking about.

Pffft! Lecturing me on unsubstantiated belief while quoting stooges from the "I can bend spoons with my mind" crowd. That's rich!

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
169. Please explain what is "kooky" about the report.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:01 AM
Dec 2014

Please be specific. And this time try not to quote Uri Gellar fanboys.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
172. Sure.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:48 AM
Dec 2014

Right after you post the credentials of the guys who signed it...like you've been repeatedly asked to do.
Not titles, but actual reasons why we should be impressed by their names.
We'll wait.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
187. What? You want their college transcripts?
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 01:47 PM
Dec 2014

WTF are you talking about? If you're claiming they're imposters that's on you. You make an assertion, You back it up. The Cometa Report is a published report. If it's fake present some evidence. You tried once and failed spectacularly and now you want me to do your job?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
188. No, I would like to know their expertise.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 01:53 PM
Dec 2014

We know Sagan's.
And if you want his college transcripts, I'm sure we could find them.
It's not on me to show why these guys you list are so impressive.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
195. In what world are generals and admirals not impressive.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:05 PM
Dec 2014

You're not even making sense. Here is the the list again. Please notice that the titles are a bit more impressive than a disgraced con man like Uri Gellar or one of his deluded fan boys like John Alexander.

General Bruno Lemoine, Air Force (former auditor of IHEDN)
Admiral Marc Merlo, (former auditor of IHEDN)
Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (former auditor of IHEDN)
General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (former auditor of IHEDN)
Denis Blancher, Chief National Police superintendent at the Ministry of the Interior
Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the National Corps des Mines and Research Director at the
National Office of Aeronautical Research (ONERA)
General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, armaments engineer
Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA at CNES
François Louange, President of Fleximage, specializing in photo analysis
General Joseph Domange, of the Air Force, general delegate of the Association of Auditors at IHEDN.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
199. LOL!
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:09 PM
Dec 2014

Just because someone is a general or admiral they know all about UFOs?
Tell me, what topic DON'T they know about?
Do you believe everything any general or admiral says?
You keep posting their title but not their expertise or any reason they carry any weight.
Wouldn't it be easier to say you don't know?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
193. Guy's M.O. is to get you to waste your time.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:00 PM
Dec 2014

What's that word for demanding of others what you don't demand for yourself?

ETA the Inspiration: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025487193#post9

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
194. well then perhaps you can tell me the expertise of the guys who signed off on the Cometa Report?
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:02 PM
Dec 2014

Maybe you can help that poster out with your expertise?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
207. So what? I never claimed I did.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:20 PM
Dec 2014

Why is it so important for you to get me to say what you want, zappaman?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
209. "So what?"
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:23 PM
Dec 2014

So nothing.
I never claimed you did.
Just thought you might want to help out the poster.
I asked a question and you said you didn't know.
Whats the problem now?

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
3. Obviously, the aliens use their cloaking device to hide from the ubiquitous cameras.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 03:25 PM
Dec 2014

I mean, obviously!

2naSalit

(86,646 posts)
5. Since they can't be trusted...
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 03:49 PM
Dec 2014

That means there are aliens and the agency doesn't want us to know about it because we -the little people - might ask them for help!!

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
6. The UFO phenomenon is intriguing not because of sightings explained.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 04:16 PM
Dec 2014

It's because of the ones that aren't. There have been hundreds of unexplained UFO sightings proceeding, during, and after the 50's and 60's by very credible witnesses including sworn, on duty, law enforcement and military personnel, commercial and military pilots, as well as ordinary citizens from all over the world.

This CIA tweet does nothing to resolve those sightings. They remain a mystery.

Your claim that everyone carries a camera so "why are there significantly LESS photos of UFOs" is quite specious. Have you been to Youtube lately? There are more pictures and video of UFO's than ever. Granted the vast majority are fakes and mistakes but the idea that UFO photos don't exist is erroneous. The question is silly to begin with. The UFO phenomenon is unpredictable and transitory. It would be like claiming mid air plane collisions don't exist because no one has snapped a picture of one lately. And let's be real here. Phone cameras are good for taking selfies and that's about it. They are not designed to take photos of fast moving objects at a distance. A blurry dot on somebody's camera phone wouldn't convince you, me, or anybody else.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
7. Maybe I should have said "good" ones not "obviously faked" bullshit ones.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 04:27 PM
Dec 2014

Where are the UFOs?

If there is one thing that can be said, for sure, about the UFO issue in the second decade of the 21st Century, it’s that the subject is not what it once was. No, I’m not talking about the people in the field. As they have always done, they continue to research, investigate, strut around flaunting their egos like pompous peacocks, and engage in petty and pointless arguments that usually amount to damn-all. Rather, I’m talking about the phenomenon of UFOs.

more: http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2013/10/where-are-the-ufos/

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
11. Where are the UFO's?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 05:19 PM
Dec 2014

Good question. But any attempt to answer that question one has engage in pure speculation which is the bane of the entire UFO research community and why the topic remains shrouded in controversy. Without a governing body such as a university or governmental agency to collect data, monitor research, test evidence, and evaluate claims even the best and most conscientious researchers are left wanting.

Peer review is the cornerstone of science and this is where the UFO phenomenon has been denied.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
31. Believe me, there are many scientists who would love to write a peer reviewed article
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 06:49 PM
Dec 2014

There are a number of scientists who have spent their entire lives searching for proof of life on other planets. NASA has invested millions upon millions of dollars in the search for extraterrestrial life, they are not engaging in a cover up in fact there is nothing they would love more than to be able to hold a press conference to announce they have found proof of extraterrestrial life.

The problem is they have not yet found that proof, and until they do there is nothing to peer review. History Channel documentaries are not science, currently there is no science supporting extraterrestrial life beyond a few organic compounds that have been discovered on Mars. The lack of science does not mean extraterrestrial life does not exist of course, it just means that it is difficult to study planets that are located light years away from our own. I strongly believe that there is life on other planets, but the scientists are correct to hold off on announcing such a thing until they can gather actual data that can be peer reviewed.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
42. The search for life in space is not the study of UFO's.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:26 PM
Dec 2014

They are only tangentially related. What is an astrophysicist going to do with a UFO experience reported by a pilot? It's not in his/her wheelhouse. They can speculate but even that would only be a fraction of the all the elements needed to conclude whether the information was reliable or not. The pilot's employers or commanders would know more if the pilot's a reliable witness. A psychologist could determine if the pilot is mentally stable. A doctor could determine if his/her vision/perception is normal.

The UFO phenomenon is unpredictable, transitory, and leaves very little to no physical evidence. That doesn't preclude the fact that there a very many credible witnesses reporting UFO activity that goes unexplained.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
49. Because making fun of those exposing America's fascist enemies is its own reward.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:40 PM
Dec 2014

I don't understand why you make fun of the BFEE, siddithers of DU.

Their trail as warmonger-banksters goes back at least to war profiteering during World War I, when Samuel Prescott Bush ran Remington selling rifles to both sides. Before that, there's evidence their ancestors were slave holders.

I've talked about his son, Prescott Sheldon Bush; grandson, George Herbert Walker Bush; and great-grandsons, George Walker Bush, John Ellis (Jeb) Bush, and Neil Mallon Bush.

Going from what you've posted, you seem to be defending their position, siddithers of DU, which is odd for someone interested in supporting democracy.



zappaman

(20,606 posts)
53. I've never seen Sid or anyone else defending the Bushes. Don't you ever get tired of that smear?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:49 PM
Dec 2014

Maybe time for a new smear in the new year, Brad!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
60. I've been a DUer longer than most. Don't know 'Brad.'
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:01 PM
Dec 2014

Is that some kind of code word for asshole, zappaman?

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
164. Not odd at all, SOP for some here.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 12:30 AM
Dec 2014

I have no idea why someone would try and carry water for the BFEE, not on a progressive forum. I guess they forget which site they are posting on.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
182. What Exactly Was Carl Sagan Working on with the U.S. Military?
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 01:26 PM
Dec 2014

Keith Veronese
iO9, 12/17/12

EXCERPT...

Sagan and Project Blue Book

The majority of Sagan's contact with the military came as a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board beginning in 1966. Sagan lectured at Harvard at this time in his life, but would soon depart to become Associate Professor of Astronomy in the Center for Radiophysics and Space Research at Cornell after being denied tenure by Harvard.

At this time in his career, Sagan had already begun to publish his suppositions about the atmosphere of Venus and became a member of the fringe in the eyes of many thanks to his ruminations on the possibility of intelligent life in the universe. Sagan also played a role in advising the U.S. Space Program, a program synonymous with military applications during the Cold War era.

Sagan allegedly received $800 per day (roughly $4500 in current dollars), an astounding sum for a university lecturer, to act as a consultant for the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. The United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board began in 1944 as a secret program with a variety of missions, including determining the possibility of using atomic energy in jet propulsion as well as non-traditional use of nuclear weapons.

Sagan's military contact revolved around Project Blue Book, a 23-year study of UFOs conducted by the United States Air Force that ceased in January of 1970. Project Blue Book took a systematic approach to the study of unidentified flying objects, analyzing possible UFO data and aiming to determine if these objects were a danger to United States national security.

Within the two-decade-plus report are 12,618 "sightings", with analysis leaving a mere 700 classified as unidentified. The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, however concluded that Project Blue Book did not meet necessary rigors, suggesting a university-led study of unidentified flying objects would be far more conclusive.

CONTINUED w/links, videos, etc....

http://io9.com/5968239/what-exactly-was-carl-sagan-working-on-with-the-us-military

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
204. Remember Felix Moncla and Robert Wilson...
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:16 PM
Dec 2014

...two USAF officers who disappeared while chasing a UFO in 1953.





Radar operator stated he watched the aircraft approach the UFO; then saw the two blips merge into one return on his scope; which then took off at a high rate of speed and out of radar range.

http://www.nuforc.org/mancla.html

No remains of the crew or wreckage of the F-89C have been found.



This is why I wrote in post numbers 44, 55, 112 and elsewhere on this thread: "Some UFOs represent a phenomenon of unknown origin."

For some reason, though, you keep repeating your question. Is it because you don't know or is it because you like to waste my time?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
214. Remember Thomas Mantell...
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:29 PM
Dec 2014

Mantell Case (1948)

EXCERPT...

Mantell was an experienced pilot; his flight history consisted of 2,167 hours in the air, and he had been honored for his part in the Battle of Normandy during World War II.

On 7 January 1948, Godman Field at Fort Knox, Kentucky received a report from the Kentucky Highway Patrol of an unusual aerial object near Maysville, Kentucky. Reports of a westbound circular object, 250 feet (76 m) to 300 feet (91 m) in diameter, were received from Owensboro, Kentucky, and Irvington, Kentucky.

At about 1:45 p.m., Sgt Quinton Blackwell saw an object from his position in the control tower at Fort Knox. Two other witnesses in the tower also reported a white object in the distance. Base commander Colonel Guy Hix reported an object he described as "very white," and "about one fourth the size of the full moon ... Through binoculars it appeared to have a red border at the bottom ... It remained stationary, seemingly, for one and a half hours." Observers at Clinton County Army Air Field in Ohio described the object "as having the appearance of a flaming red cone trailing a gaseous green mist" and observed the object for around 35 minutes. Another observer at Lockbourne Army Air Field in Ohio noted, "Just before leaving it came to very near the ground, staying down for about ten seconds, then climbed at a very fast rate back to its original altitude, 10,000 feet, leveling off and disappearing into the overcast heading 120 degrees. Its speed was greater than 500 mph in level flight."

Four P-51 Mustangs of C Flight, 165th Fighter Squadron Kentucky Air National Guard already in the air—one piloted by Mantell—were told to approach the object. Blackwell was in radio communication with the pilots throughout the event.

One pilot's Mustang was low on fuel, and he quickly abandoned his efforts. Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt (the first head of Project Blue Book) notes that there was some disagreement amongst the air traffic controllers as to Mantell's words as he communicated with the tower: some sources reported that Mantell had described an object "[which] looks metallic and of tremendous size," but, according to Ruppelt in The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, others disputed whether or not Mantell actually said this.

The other two pilots accompanied Mantell in steep pursuit of the object. They later reported they saw an object, but described it as so small and indistinct they could not identify it. Mantell ignored suggestions that the pilots should level their altitude and try to more clearly see the object.

Only one of Mantell's companions, Lt. Albert Clemmons, had an oxygen mask, and his oxygen was in low supply. Clemmons and a Lt. Hammond called off their pursuit at 22,500 feet (6,900 m). Mantell continued to climb, however. According to the Air Force, once Mantell passed 25,000 feet (7,600 m) he supposedly blacked out from the lack of oxygen (hypoxia), and his plane began spiraling back towards the ground. A witness later reported Mantell's Mustang in a circling descent. His plane crashed at a farm south of Franklin, Kentucky, on the Tennessee-Kentucky state line.

Firemen later pulled Mantell's body from the Mustang's wreckage. His wristwatch had stopped at 3:18 p.m., the time of his crash. Meanwhile, by 3:50 p.m. the UFO was no longer visible to observers at Godman Field. The Mantell Incident was reported by newspapers around the nation, and received significant news media attention. A number of sensational rumors were also circulated about Mantell's crash. Among the rumors were claims that Mantell's fighter had been shot down by the UFO he was chasing, and that the Air Force covered up evidence proving this. Another rumor stated that Mantell's body was found riddled with strange holes. However, no evidence has ever surfaced to substantiate any of these claims. In 1956, Ruppelt wrote that the Mantell Crash was one of three "classic" UFO cases in 1948 that would help to define the UFO phenomenon in the public mind, and would help to convince Air Force intelligence specialists that UFOs were a "real", physical phenomenon (Ruppelt 30). The other two sightings were the Gorman Dogfight and the Chiles-Whitted UFO Encounter.

CONTINUED...

http://www.mufon.com/mantell-case---1948.html

PS: Too bad if you don't like my answer.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
216. Was he a friend of Carl Sagan's?
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:31 PM
Dec 2014

It's not that I don't like your answer, its that it makes no sense.
What does this guy have to do with Carl Sagan?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
217. Remember Frederick Valentich...
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:36 PM
Dec 2014

His late father holds the missing flyer's picture:



Delta Sierra Juliet? Do you read?

Boats and aircraft have found no trace of the 20-year old Australian pilot who disappeared with his plane on Saturday night after radioing that he was being chased by a UFO. Frederick Valentich was on a 125 mile training flight in his single engine Cessna 182 along the coast of Bass Strait when he told air traffic controllers in Melbourne that he was being buzzed by a UFO with 4 bright lights about 1000 feet above him.

Controllers said his last message was taped and was: "It's approaching from due east towards me. It seems to be playing some sort of game... flying at a speed I can't estimate. It's not an aircraft. It's...It is flying past. It is a long shape. I cannot identify more than that. It's coming for me right now." A minute later: "It seems to be stationary. I'm also orbiting and the thing is orbiting on top of me also. It has a green light and a sort of metallic light on the outside." Valentich then radioed that his engine was running roughly. His last words were: "It is not an aircraft."

The Australian Air Force said it had received 11 reports from people along the coast who said they saw UFOs on Saturday night, but the Transport Department was skeptical. Ken Williams, a spokesman for the department, said, "It's funny all these people ringing up with UFO reports well after Valentich's disappearance. It seems people often decide after the event, they too had seen strange lights. But although we can't take them too seriously, we can never discourgae such reports when investigating a plane's disappearance."

SNIP...

[font size="5"]ACTUAL TRANSCRIPTION OF MELBOURNE FLIGHT SERVICE [/font size]

The transcript portion of the communication between Valentich and Melbourne Flight Service as released by the Australian Department of Transport follows: (FS - Flight Service, DSJ - Frederick Valentich aircraft designation).
1906:14 DSJ Melbourne, this is Delta Sierra Juliet. Is there any known traffic below five thousand?

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, no known traffic.

DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, I am, seems to be a large aircraft below five thousand.

1906:44 FS Delta Sierra Juliet, What type of aircraft is it?

DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, I cannot affirm, it is four bright, it seems to me like landing lights.

1907 FS Delta Sierra Juliet.

1907:31 DSJ Melbourne, this is Delta Sierra Juliet, the aircraft has just passed over me at least a thousand feet above.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, and it is a large aircraft, confirmed?

DSJ Er-unknown, due to the speed it's travelling, is there any air force aircraft in the vicinity?

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, no known aircraft in the vicinity.

1908:18 DSJ Melbourne, it's approaching now from due east towards me.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet.

1908:41 DSJ (open microphone for two seconds.)

1908:48 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, it seems to me that he's playing some sort of game, he's flying over me two, three times at speeds I could not identify.

1909 FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, what is your actual level?

DSJ My level is four and a half thousand, four five zero zero.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, and you confirm you cannot identify the aircraft?

DSJ Affirmative.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, stand by.

1909:27 DSJ Melbourne, Delta Sierra Juliet, it's not an aircraft it is (open microphone for two seconds).

1909:42 FS Delta Sierra Juliet, can you describe the -er- aircraft?

DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, as it's flying past it's a long shape (open microphone for three seconds) cannot identify more than it has such speed (open microphone for three seconds). It's before me right now Melbourne.

1910 FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger and how large would the - er - object be?

1910:19 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, Melbourne, it seems like it's stationary. What I'm doing right now is orbiting and the thing is just orbiting on top of me also. It's got a green light and sort of metallic like, it's all shiny on the outside.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet

1910:46 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet (open microphone for three seconds) It's just vanished.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet

1911 DSJ Melbourne, would you know what kind of aircraft I've got? Is it a military aircraft?

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, Confirm the - er ~ aircraft just vanished.

DSJ Say again.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, is the aircraft still with you?

DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet; it's (open microphone for two seconds) now approaching from the south-west.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet

1911:50 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, the engine is rough-idling. I've got it set at twenty three twenty-four and the thing is coughing.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, what are your intentions?

DSJ My intentions are - ah - to go to King Island - ah - Melbourne. That strange aircraft is hovering on top of me again (open microphone for two seconds). It is hovering and it's not an aircraft.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet.

1912:28 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet. Melbourne (open microphone for seventeen seconds).

SOURCE: http://www.ufocasebook.com/australianpilot.html

PS: Unless you've edited it, your question was: "What's your opinion? Interested to hear it." What's that called when someone puts words into another's mouth in order to argue something that wasn't said?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
218. What's the word when you post things that have nothing to do with the question?
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:41 PM
Dec 2014

To refresh:
you said "What Exactly Was Carl Sagan Working on with the U.S. Military?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026021551#post182

I said "What's your opinion? Interested to hear it."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026021551#post190

and now you're posting about some guys in response that don't seem to have anything to do with your original question or mine.

What's that called again?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
220. No, the OP is about the CIA admitting to being responsible for many UFO sightings.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 02:59 PM
Dec 2014

Sorry you're confused.
Can I help some more?
Or are you just kicking this thread to waste time?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
221. If so, why your need to denigrate my responses?
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 03:03 PM
Dec 2014

That is not what a person interested in discussion would do.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
222. Oh right, I forgot no one can ever disagree with your "opinions"
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 03:07 PM
Dec 2014

Sorry, you believe the Heflin photos are real.
They aren't.
But I do appreciate all your kicks in this thread!
Glad you like it!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
223. No. The forum you linked to said that.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 03:19 PM
Dec 2014

And nowhere there did anyone "prove" they weren't anything other than what Heflin said they were.

As for the kicks: I don't mind anyone seeing what I wrote.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
234. I also posted the official CIA history on UFOs in post #131.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 07:10 PM
Dec 2014

It goes over the stuff from your tweet, except it did that 21 years ago:

According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)

Did you know you were repeating what the CIA has been saying regarding UFOs for decades, zappaman?

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
12. I don't know what's more terrifying...
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 05:22 PM
Dec 2014

The fact that we're not alone in the universe, or the fact that we might be.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
13. There's gotta be life somewhere.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 05:26 PM
Dec 2014

I just don't believe they come all the way here just to hang around.
Although, I would not blame them if they came here for the In 'N' Out burgers.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
17. We're likely not alone.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 05:52 PM
Dec 2014

What's terrifying is if and when it's revealed to us we're not on top of the food chain. If aliens really do exist and decided to engage with us we're screwed. We would have no defense against them or ability to deny them anything they wanted. It would be like bows and arrows against nuclear equipped stealth bombers.

Even if they were benevolent, a race of beings that far advanced could never deal with us on anything that could be considered an equal footing. At best we would be a protected species, at worst we could be used for spare parts or food.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
116. A line from Shakespeare's "King Lear" comes to mind: "Like flies to wanton boys are
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:35 PM
Dec 2014

we to the Gods. They kill us for their sport."

This post and the one to which you're responding bring up some really cogent philosophical questions like whether homo sapiens deserve special standing in a coldly indifferent universe and\or whether the process of natural selection need stop with man.

Will be pulling out my copy of Godel, Escher, Bach (a must-read if you have not already done so) to consider these questions more fully.

Archae

(46,335 posts)
16. The old Soviet Union actually encouraged UFO stories...
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 05:51 PM
Dec 2014

So they wouldn't have to be honest about their rockets and jets.

The old R-7 booster (still in use after nearly 60 years!) can cause the "jellyfish UFO" seen near spy satellite launch bases.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
355. Not exactly.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 04:23 PM
Jan 2015

As in the USA, for most of the USSR's history, UFO researchers in the former Soviet Union had to conduct their research "underground." Jacques Vallee wrote about it:

UFO Chronicles of the Soviet Union: A Cosmic Samizdat

Eric Ouellet provides a nuanced review:

http://parasociology.blogspot.com/2008/12/reading-notes-valles-ufo-chronicles-of.html

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
30. It's not an issue of belief.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 06:42 PM
Dec 2014

It's about forming an hypothesis based on the best evidence available. The following list of people are contributors to the Cometa Report -"UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For?". They concluded there is a high probability that UFO's are extraterrestrial in nature. One would be hard pressed to consider them starry eyed loons who "want to believe".

General Bruno Lemoine, Air Force (former auditor of IHEDN)
Admiral Marc Merlo, (former auditor of IHEDN)
Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (former auditor of IHEDN)
General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (former auditor of IHEDN)
Denis Blancher, Chief National Police superintendent at the Ministry of the Interior
Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the National Corps des Mines and Research Director at the National Office of Aeronautical Research (ONERA)
General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, armaments engineer
Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA at CNES
François Louange, President of Fleximage, specializing in photo analysis
General Joseph Domange, of the Air Force, general delegate of the Association of Auditors at IHEDN.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
83. Look, I believe that life is probably pretty abundant in the Universe.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:35 PM
Dec 2014

I do not, however, buy that it has been visiting us in hubcaps since 1947.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
94. Oh, I didn't say that the quantum overmind doesn't communicate via the trans-psychedelic aethernet
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:51 PM
Dec 2014

when certain individuals are particularly tuned in. ('95 is a tough year for me to listen to )

I just said aliens aren't visiting in hubcaps.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
102. I agree with the guy who posted the video
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:15 PM
Dec 2014

that 95 had some gems.
but yeah, that's when it all ended for me.
at least we still have the recordings and memories..well some memories!

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
140. I saw a couple classic shows that year, for sure.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:17 PM
Dec 2014

But it was definitely a "final hurrah" sort of situation. Too bad because you can hear jerry still exploring, carving out some new spaces like in that link... It could have gone a different way but I think he was tired of fighting his demons.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
142. Honestly I miss the JG Band even more
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:21 PM
Dec 2014

I saw plenty of disappointing Dead shows, but never a bad JGB show.
RIP Jerry.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
120. They waited to start on the anal probings until Bush was President. See the
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:39 PM
Dec 2014

Executive Summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for more on that.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
45. Actually it is true
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:32 PM
Dec 2014

as far as me caring, I posted something for discussion.
Welcome to DU...again!

 

Boreal

(725 posts)
50. No, it is not true
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:40 PM
Dec 2014

and I've never seen a UFO post on DU until yours. Maybe you can start a UFO group, lol.

 

Boreal

(725 posts)
67. A wikipedia entry
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:10 PM
Dec 2014

of a few UFO reports doesn't mean anything. Nor does an article about CGI.

Anyway, the question is why anyone feels the need to debunk UFOs on DU.

Very odd.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
69. Who's debunking?
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:12 PM
Dec 2014

I believe in UFO's.
Plenty of people see something they can't identify.
But alien in origin? Nah.
Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
So let's see it.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
43. One more year and I get my very own starship.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:27 PM
Dec 2014

Long story. I of course already knew about half were CIA, since they are actually all lizard people from Central Earth (with far greater technology then man or moleman). However if I keep the molemen suppressed deep underground, I will be promoted to Awesome Leader and get my very own starship.

Lot of people didn't know that about me. I prefer the cold to the heat.

panader0

(25,816 posts)
93. I find it incredulous that anyone could believe that humans are the only intelligent
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 08:51 PM
Dec 2014

life form in this galaxy, much less the universe. Human intelligence isn't that wonderful as history has proven.
To deny the huge possibilities of extraterrestrial life makes that intelligence even lower.
Hoorah for humans, we're the best! And American humans are even better!

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
127. "Human intelligence," like its close sibiling "military intelligence," is almost
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:48 PM
Dec 2014

an oxymoron.

Apologies to Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Madame Curie, J.S. Bach, Ludwig von, Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Shakespeare and Eudora Welty. Oh, yeah, and that Karl Marx fellow. (May have neglected to mention one or two others.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
132. While you're at it, Flannery O'Connor would also repay your efforts. Also, the 19th-century
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:00 PM
Dec 2014

British writer George Eliot (of Middlemarch and Silas Marner fame) is not to be missed, nor Jane Austen. Some smart ladies, way smarter than I.

panader0

(25,816 posts)
137. If you can believe it, I just ordered Welty on Amazon (?) and they said "people who ordered
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:12 PM
Dec 2014

this also ordered Flannery O'Conner. So I did, the complete short stories. January 7....

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
143. You will not be sorry. I'd also like to put in a pitch for one of my old
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:21 PM
Dec 2014

grad school profs, Tilottama Rajan. Easily the most brilliant person I have ever met, even if her fields of specialty (British Romantic poetry and contemporary literary theory) are somewhat arcane and obscure.

Because of Ms. Rajan, I can say that I have been in the presence of sheer, utter brilliance (albeit rather fleetingly). It was simultaneously humbling and exhilarating for this plodder through the pages of British lit, as witnessed by the fact that I remember her as plain as day some 20 years later.

http://publish.uwo.ca/~trajan/

BootinUp

(47,164 posts)
97. I guess they want some attention: LOOK AT ME!
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:04 PM
Dec 2014

But the more interesting and attention getting UFO sightings were NOT U-2 s at an altitude of 60K feet. Now don't think that I believe in UFO's. For anyone who does, please read Carl Sagan's book The Demon Haunted World http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1/185-5286699-1820809?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419987791&sr=1-1&keywords=carl+sagan

LongTomH

(8,636 posts)
99. Carl Sagan's name has been invoked here. Carl was definitely a skeptic; but........
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:11 PM
Dec 2014

......he did engage in polite dialogues on the subject. He didn't ridicule his opponents.

Carl Sagan took part in an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium in 1969. The results of that symposium were published in UFOs: A Scientific Debate.

Quote from the Wikipedia article:

Sociologist Ron Westrum writes that "The high point of Sagan's treatment of the UFO question was the AAAS' symposium in 1969. A wide range of educated opinions on the subject were offered by participants, including not only proponents such as James McDonald and J. Allen Hynek but also skeptics like astronomers William Hartmann and Donald Menzel. The roster of speakers was balanced, and it is to Sagan's credit that this event was presented in spite of pressure from Edward Condon. With physicist Thornton Page, Sagan edited the lectures and discussions given at the symposium; these were published in 1972 as UFO's: A Scientific Debate. Some of Sagan's many books examine UFOs (as did one episode of Cosmos) and he claimed a religious undercurrent to the phenomenon.

BootinUp

(47,164 posts)
110. By me and I don't if others did, haven't had time to read them all
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:29 PM
Dec 2014

but the book I linked to above was written in 1997. His opinion on the subject had evolved to where he plainly stated that we had not been visited, and he included in the book tons of material about his research on it.

LongTomH

(8,636 posts)
118. The point I tried to make is, that he did engage in a polite dialogue.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:37 PM
Dec 2014

Carl was always skeptical; but, he was always a gentleman. He never resorted to ad hominem, even against people he strongly disagreed with.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
370. The point of this thread was to waste time as someone else pointed out.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:09 AM
Jan 2015

And of course to get some cheap kicks in against certain people. Sad that it still works year after year. You would think by now Charlie Brown would realize Lucy is never going to let him kick that football.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
372. Hey I can waste your time too, not like it is hard.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:21 AM
Jan 2015

Great shit stirring thread you created! One of the best of 2014!

 

BlueJazz

(25,348 posts)
125. A few of the problems we have, regarding the chance in being visited by other beings.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:46 PM
Dec 2014

1. We live a little bit off the beaten path. Rather like: "Why go to the suburbs when there's way more planets in the neighborhood."
2. Time. Think of it like this: Pick an Hour & Minute & Second & 1/4000 of a second at random. Have your friend do the same. Compare times. If you both picked the same time. Congratulations !! You have a tiny, tiny chance of meeting each other on a universal time scale.
3. Distance. This may change but for now the universe has been moving apart a long time. Hard to catch up.
4. By far... not the last point but maybe we're just not that interesting. I like to look at Frogs and Birds and other creatures but take the trouble to go 300 light years to see some? I think not.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
138. These are some excellent points you make (from the Skeptical side of
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:12 PM
Dec 2014

the spectrum, I'm guessing). WRT #2, we've been putting out electromagnetic communciations for roughly 100 years now and one could imagine an advanced interstellar civilization with listening posts. WRT #4, I think you underestimate the passion of some of your fellow ornithologists and herpetologists (of the human variety, that is I would assume said interstellar civilization will, of course, have a healthy component of cultural "anthropologists" (not sure if that's exactly the right word) who need to get their professional credentials by living amongst the natives.

Finally, WRT #3, I was reminded of a funny little joke the character Mia Wallace tells Vincent Vega in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction:

"So there's Papa Tomato, Momma Tomato and Baby Tomato walking along the street. Baby Tomato starts lagging behind, and Papa Tomato starts getting really angry. So, he turns around and squishes Baby Tomato and says, 'Ketchup.'

 

BlueJazz

(25,348 posts)
147. I forget who said this but I thought it was pretty cool. >
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:28 PM
Dec 2014

If we find out there's other races out there, in the universe, won't that be the most incredible thing! If we find out that we are truly alone in the universe, wouldn't that be the most incredible thing!

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
148. Awesome stuff. In return I'll leave you with a passage from Dickens' "Great Expectations," where
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:33 PM
Dec 2014

the child narrator Pip stops to consider the escaped convict Magwitch's fate upon the marsh on a cold night:

Joe made the fire and swept the hearth, and then we went to the door to listen for the chaise-cart. It was a dry cold night, and the wind blew keenly, and the frost was white and hard. A man would die to-night of lying out on the marshes, I thought. And then I looked at the stars, and considered how awful if would be for a man to turn his face up to them as he froze to death, and see no help or pity in all the glittering multitude.

From Chapter 7

Kablooie

(18,634 posts)
144. Makes sense, but the other half were actual alien spacecraft sightings.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:25 PM
Dec 2014

I know this for a fact.



Definition of the word "fact": "Having heard a rumor about something."

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
163. Creative Speculation not good enough for you?
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 12:25 AM
Dec 2014

Usually that's where the flame bates are that you love so much!

BeanMusical

(4,389 posts)
175. Frankly, at this point, I don't believe a damn thing the CIA is saying about any subject.
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 04:12 AM
Dec 2014

They have zero credibility.

frogmarch

(12,154 posts)
192. Not UFOs - Fuckin’ Foo Fighters!
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 01:58 PM
Dec 2014
The term foo fighter was used by Allied aircraft pilots in World War II to describe various UFOs or mysterious aerial phenomena seen in the skies over both the European and Pacific theaters of operations.

Though "foo fighter" initially described a type of UFO reported and named by the U.S. 415th Night Fighter Squadron, the term was also commonly used to mean any UFO sighting from that period.[1] Formally reported from November 1944 onwards, witnesses often assumed that the foo fighters were secret weapons employed by the enemy.

The Robertson Panel explored possible explanations, for instance that they were electrostatic phenomena similar to St. Elmo's fire, electromagnetic phenomena, or simply reflections of light from ice crystals.

...

The nonsense word "foo" emerged in popular culture during the early 1930s, first being used by cartoonist Bill Holman who peppered his Smokey Stover fireman cartoon strips with "foo" signs and puns.[4][5][6]

The term foo was borrowed from Bill Holman's Smokey Stover by a radar operator in the 415th Night Fighter Squadron, Donald J. Meiers, who it is agreed by most 415th members gave the foo fighters their name. Meiers was from Chicago and was an avid reader of Bill Holman's strip which was run daily in the Chicago Tribune. Smokey Stover's catch phrase was "where there's foo, there's fire". In a mission debriefing on the evening November 27, 1944, Fritz Ringwald, the unit's S-2 Intelligence Officer, stated that Meiers and Ed Schleuter had sighted a red ball of fire that appeared to chase them through a variety of high-speed maneuvers. Fritz said that Meiers was extremely agitated and had a copy of the comic strip tucked in his back pocket. He pulled it out and slammed it down on Fritz's desk and said, "... it was another one of those fuckin' foo fighters!" and stormed out of the debriefing room.[7]

According to Fritz Ringwald, because of the lack of a better name, it stuck. And this was originally what the men of the 415th started calling these incidents: "Fuckin' Foo Fighters." In December 1944, a press correspondent from the Associated Press in Paris, Bob Wilson, was sent to the 415th at their base outside of Dijon, France to investigate this story.[8] It was at this time that the term was cleaned up to just "foo fighters". The unit commander, Capt. Harold Augsperger, also decided to shorten the term to foo fighters in the unit's historical data.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter


In the early 1950s, when I was around 8 years old, an uncle of mine who'd been a Navy pilot in WWII sometimes sat with me on the back porch and showed me how to look for foo fighters with ordinary binoculars. We never did see any. I didn't hear them called UFOs till I was a teenager. I like the term foo fighters better, and fuckin' foo fighters better yet.
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
268. K&R for the truth
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:47 PM
Jan 2015

is out there! Somewhere. Probably not anywhere near here though. Probably 3 galaxies over to the right. I hear one of those is a magic galaxy, why couldn't we get one of those?

I guess you either get a magic galaxy or a science galaxy. That explains my lack of a rainbow unicorn that can fart 24k gold bars.

Jeffersons Ghost

(15,235 posts)
270. I think CIA agents should do their jobs and stop going on "UFO sightings"
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 09:12 PM
Jan 2015

Are these "UFO sighting" tours like whale sighting tours?

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
275. When I read that there were more exo-planets than people on earth
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 10:30 PM
Jan 2015

It meant the odds were good there was life elsewhere and that we will be sending flying objects to their planets than I wondered if there was intelligent life how they would treat 'UFO sightings claims' over there.

akbacchus_BC

(5,704 posts)
288. I did not realise that you had a female face to your name!
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 04:29 AM
Jan 2015

Glad you into UFO's and leaving Nadin alone. Grateful for that!

Happy New Year to you and your friends!

randys1

(16,286 posts)
308. The Phoenix lights where everyone sees what is clearly flares, is not the part
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:45 PM
Jan 2015

of that sighting that interests me.

What interests me are the dozens of reports from earlier that night of a HUGE craft silently and slowly cruising the skies that night.

Way too many witnesses with similar stories, they were seeing a craft, what kind we dont know...

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
326. Good explanation here...
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:11 PM
Jan 2015

In fact, given the apparent distance from the eyewitnesses to the lights (and between the lights), it's very unlikely that the three lights were fixed on one aircraft (or spacecraft). A solid craft that large would likely be at least the size of a football field, would have been picked up on radar at the Phoenix airport, would have blotted out the stars, and would have been noticed by hundreds or thousands of Phoenix residents. Instead, the most likely explanation is that people were reporting three independent lights in the sky. The fact that the lights changed formation during the course of the sighting is also strong evidence that the lights were independently moving objects, not part of a spacecraft.

http://www.livescience.com/33539-ufo-triangle-lights-phoenix.html

randys1

(16,286 posts)
332. You would need to watch one of the specials about the night, before the 10PM mass sighting of
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:17 PM
Jan 2015

what are clearly flares, several people all over the state report a HUGE, silent craft slowly flying a few hundred feet over their heads

You can find the information if you look for it, this means either we have a craft that is really way way ahead of what we think our tech is, or they are all lying or a 3rd option

randys1

(16,286 posts)
335. The same night of the PHoenix lights, I have seen no less than 3 different one hour shows on tv
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:19 PM
Jan 2015

all different, all about that night, all with the same group of very credible witnesses discussing this which was earlier than the flares.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
338. I think that was addressed in the article I linked to?
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:24 PM
Jan 2015

As it turns out, there were at least two other people who reported seeing similar (though not identical) lights in the sky on the same evening. For example, some people reported seeing two lights, not three; one witness reported, "a triangle-shaped object [with] three glowing green lights that, at times, seemed to pulsate."

Yet this eyewitness has also made an unsupported assumption that what he saw was actually a "triangle-shaped object." Instead, he saw three lights and assumed that each of those lights were fixed at the ends of three points. By this logic, had this witness seen four lights, he would have assumed it was a rectangular-shaped object in the night sky above him. This also might help explain why many UFO reports describe three lights: one or two lights are much less likely to be interpreted as points on a flying craft.

http://www.livescience.com/33539-ufo-triangle-lights-phoenix.html

or are you saying there were other sightings?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
340. Thats why I was asking the year!
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:35 PM
Jan 2015

They seem to have been explained in that wiki link.

More here though
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1997-06-26/news/the-great-ufo-cover-up/

and here...

To this day, programs like Dateline invariably question people who saw the earlier “vee” event, and quote them saying that flares couldn’t possibly explain what they saw. They are right. They didn’t see flares, they saw a formation of planes. Dateline repeatedly showed people talking about their memories of the 8:30 vee while showing video of the 10 pm flares. Talk about misleading.

There was at least one person who videotaped both the 8:30 vee and the later event. I saw his tape myself. It clearly showed the five lights of the 8:30 vee moving in relation to each other, exactly as you’d expect in a formation of airplanes.

As for the people who swore they saw a black triangular shape joining the five lights of the vee, that’s a classic contrast effect of the human eye. In a very telling case, a man who swore he saw a black shape joining the lights of the vee saw it pass directly in front of the moon. At that point, he saw not a black shape but wavy lines pass over the undimmed moon. But rather than conclude that he’d seen the contrails of planes, the man, whose perception had already been heavily influenced by the UFO explanation concluded instead that the pilot of the alien craft had turned his spaceship transparent right at that moment so the man could see the moon through it. How convenient!

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-05-21/

randys1

(16,286 posts)
341. Yeah, that year, sorry...So basically they didnt see what they said they saw, some of them very
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:40 PM
Jan 2015

credible people, because skeptic says it was probably a group of planes.

You see I ignore that debunking, but that is just me.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
356. This explanation does not hold water. Not a drop.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 04:29 PM
Jan 2015

From the Governor of Arizona:

I witnessed a massive delta-shaped, craft silently navigate over Squaw Peak, a mountain range in Phoenix, Arizona. It was truly breathtaking. I was absolutely stunned because I was turning to the west looking for the distant Phoenix Lights.

To my astonishment this apparition appeared; this dramatically large, very distinctive leading edge with some enormous lights was traveling through the Arizona sky.

As a pilot and a former Air Force Officer, I can definitively say that this craft did not resemble any man-made object I'd ever seen. And it was certainly not high-altitude flares because flares don't fly in formation.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/09/simington.ufocommentary/index.html?eref=yahoo

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
360. I see you've given up trying to show us who the guys who signed
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:13 PM
Jan 2015

The COMETA Report are.
Couldn't find any information on them, eh?
But hey, apparently they are allegedly generals and admirals and all alleged generals and admirals know what they're talking about when it comes to UFOs because all alleged generals and admirals are experts on flying saucers.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
361. No. I never tried.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 05:34 PM
Jan 2015

You're still holding on to the notion that since you can't debunk it and I won't debunk for you, you somehow consider that a victory. You should go back to claiming Uri Gellar fanboy, John Alexander is a credible source. At least then you were honest about your responsibility to provide evidence to support your hoax and conspiracy theories regarding the Cometa Report.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
347. I don't know if there are alien crafts or not
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 06:25 PM
Jan 2015

But I do know the CIA is not known for telling the truth.

trueblue2007

(17,228 posts)
376. Betty and Barney Hill sure believed in UFOs.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 02:06 AM
Jan 2015

YES I BELIEVE IN UFOS. I have for 50+ years. My dad was into science fiction reading the old sci-fi writers and I also picked up reading the books of Isaac Asimov , Robert HEINLEIN, Ray Bradbury, Arthur CLARKE and others. We saw all of the old sci fi movies of the 50's and 60's.

I really picked up interest in the story about the Hills .....
http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/hill/hill_index.htm

Betty and Barney Hill: A Study in Madness




More interesting scientific info here. http://www.ufotruthmagazine.co.uk/ufo-best-evidence-bank/

UFO BEST EVIDENCE BANK

Welcome to the UFO Truth Magazine Best Evidence Bank. This page caters for what I believe is the best circumstantial evidence cases from around the world that to me offers a compelling case for saying that some UFO sightings indicate an extraterrestrial presence engaging with planet Earth. This evidence is based largely on high calibre witness categories i.e. military pilots, commercial pilots, astronauts, cosmonauts, radar operators, sonar operators, observer corp, senior military officials, senior political officials, scientists and ... police officers. This section will also include as time goes on to include physical evidence, documentary evidence and trace evidence cases.
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
378. Damn--I was on the mandatory holiday leave for the agency I work for, and I miss this thread?
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 11:28 AM
Jan 2015

Well done, zappaman. Well done.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
381. I've been found out.....you see, my pro-Democratic President stance on a pro-Democratic
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:16 PM
Jan 2015

board apparently makes me a paid troll. There's a poll in GD about it.

But, yeah.....the "Agency" pays pretty well.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»CIA admits to being respo...