|
Post by swamprat on Feb 14, 2011 18:50:59 GMT -6
May have to read this one; sounds intriguing.The Sarasota Herald Tribune
Devoidby Billy Cox February 14th, 2011 05:46pm Raspberries for the conspiracy crowdIf you’re even remotely serious about The Great Taboo, you’ll need to put John Alexander’s just-released UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies and Realities on your to-do list. And not just because it’s been endorsed by luminaries as disparate as Burt Rutan, Tom Clancy, Jacques Vallee and Whitley Strieber. Although it may not alter your perceptions, the challenge presented by the retired U.S. Army colonel can’t help but sharpen your critical-thinking skills. A former Los Alamos National Lab project manager with ties to the CIA, Special Forces, NATO and the National Research Council, to name a few, Alexander has rightfully cast himself as an intel-world insider. Just how deep inside is another matter, but those familiar with his longstanding interest in UFOs are well aware of his curiosities, which have led him to this position: There’s no government UFO coverup, but the phenomenon is real, sophisticated, and problematic. In UFOs, he lays it all out and, in some cases, names names.A canny operator navigating federal bureaucracies bedeviled by endless public requests for UFO material, Alexander once convened an informal group of inquisitive scientists under the name “advanced theoretical physics,” the ATP acronym so neutral it would neither threaten those they wanted to approach nor clang word-search bells in UFO-related FOIA probes. Alexander discusses how his ATP was preparing the stage for congressional hearings in 1999, only to get blown off by Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner, who then chaired the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He also reports a nibble of political interest in 2005, from Virginia Republican Tom Davis, who “allegedly had a sighting of his own.” (Davis ended his 14-year congressional career in 2008.) Alexander blames Steven Greer’s 2001 Disclosure Project press conference in Washington, in which shaky or fraudulent panelists contaminated the legitimacy of impeccable eyewitnesses, for making the issue radioactive again on Capitol Hill. In establishing the reality of UFOs, Alexander covers a lot of the same ground explored last year in Leslie Kean’s UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record, and the material is largely redundant on that front. He portrays hardcore UFO conspiracy proponents and doctrinaire skeptics as opposite sides of the same coin. What some readers may have trouble accepting is the contention that any form of UFO censorship is the arbitrary product of insecure, hand-wringing mid-level lieutenants, not from the edicts of some deep-black cabal. As proof, he reminds readers how not a single government employee, military or civilian, has ever been prosecuted for spilling the beans about their on-the-job UFO encounters. The reason is simple — an organizational coverup is a myth. Alexander recounts first-person conversations with a number of perplexed authorities who should’ve been in the know about these things, from former SDI director Gen. James Abramson to H-bomb pioneer Edward Teller. He even appeals to a few WTF sources, like well-connected military-thriller novelist Tom Clancy: “He said he knew we did not have a[n alien] craft ‘because somebody would have told me!’” What Alexander proposes here is an authority-figure reality check, from whom the sort of secrecy necessary to fund and compartmentalize subterranean UFO research is not only illogical but impossible to maintain. Alexander’s world view is reassuring; for all of its faults, our system of checks and balances still works the way it was intended. “The notion that secret subelements of the U.S. Government must deny the President access to such information when requested,” he insists, “is false and illegal.” In many ways, Alexander’s book – and its logic — is a breath of fresh air. But inevitably, it puts him at odds with a source in a book of equal credibility and creates a gap which is difficult to reconcile. More on that next time. Share and Enjoy:devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/11600/raspberries-for-the-conspiracy-crowd/?pa=all&tc=pgall
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Feb 14, 2011 21:10:29 GMT -6
I'm inclined to believe him when he says there is no government cover-up of captured UFO technology or alien craft, at least not in its entirety. They may have bits and pieces, but no the whole thing. I think when it comes to UFOs most government people are just as clueless as the rest of us...but that could be said about most government employees regardless of what the subject is. They are usually clueless about everything.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Feb 24, 2011 15:52:36 GMT -6
More from Billy:The Sarasota Herald Tribune
Devoid
Waiting for the pot to boilby Billy Cox February 24th, 2011 10:28am During his 14-year career as a Republican congressman from Virginia’s Beltway suburbs, Tom Davis rarely shrank from controversy. Swept into office during the GOP’s “Contract With America” blitz in 1994, Davis became one of the lightning-rod players in the Terri Schiavo melodrama by signing a subpoena commanding the vegetative woman and her husband to appear on Capitol Hill. Although the former chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee was a reliable party-vote lock on the House floor, he could also occasionally show flickers of independence, like his support of embryonic stem cell research. Davis declined to run for re-election in 2008 and now teaches political science at George Mason University. In his new book UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies and Realities, former National Intelligence Council consultant John Alexander adds another more oblique level of texture to Davis’ biography. Without providing details, Alexander claims Davis once had a UFO sighting, which made him the logical go-to guy for what happened in 2003. On May 23 of that year, Alexander writes, Davis and staff members met with Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell, Stanford physics professor emeritus Peter Sturrock, computer pioneer/UFO investigator Jacques Vallee, and Richard Haines, the former NASA life-sciences researcher who went on to establish the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena. The reported subject of the meeting was the effect of UFOs on air traffic safety. Alexander says the goal was to lay the groundwork for related formal hearings on The Hill. On July 21, 2005, officials with the Defense Department, the FAA, and the Department of Homeland Security did, in fact, appear before the Committee on Government Reform, which Davis chaired. The subject: “Homeland Security: Protecting Air Space in the National Capital Region.” Witnesses came prepared with stats supplied by U.S. Northern Command. Between January 27, 2003, and July 17, 2005, nearly 3,500 aircraft “incursions” into restricted zones near or above the nation’s capitol were reported, a rate of almost four a day. They noted how 655 of those incidents required the deployment of “government assets” to intercept. Given the tightened security measures enacted after 9/11, those numbers probably weren’t surprising. Actually, nothing surprising emerged from the session. No serious incidents or cause for alarm in the Beltway skies. And there wasn’t a single reference to UFOs, or to the less radioactive term UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena). Hmm. Is Alexander just trying to sell books, or did Davis wimp out big-time when the rubber hit the road? With his political aspirations apparently satisfied, Davis should feel free to refute or confirm the allegations. De Void shot an e-mail to the president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership for clarification a few days ago. But as usual, expectations are running low. And a watched pot never boils. Share and Enjoy: devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/11646/waiting-for-the-pot-to-boil/
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Feb 25, 2011 8:18:03 GMT -6
I'm inclined to believe him when he says there is no government cover-up of captured UFO technology or alien craft, at least not in its entirety. They may have bits and pieces, but no the whole thing. I think when it comes to UFOs most government people are just as clueless as the rest of us...but that could be said about most government employees regardless of what the subject is. They are usually clueless about everything. I dunno. I haven't worked for 'em in several years, but I would like to think that I do know the difference between (you know what) and shinola. I at least have that going for me. And my father, who worked for 'em for over 40 years, knows a great deal more than I do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 10:54:55 GMT -6
I think that as-a-whole...the government is clueless about UFO's..they're too darned diversified to ever be unified about anything. While out on the limb..I think some government 'people' know they're here but don't know any more than we do. Like you Sky I think they've collected bits and pieces of stuff and they have reports up the wazoo..but firsthand knowledge eludes them as it does us. I do think there are elements within the government that know more and know enough to be worried..but they're not the part of the government that ever sees the light of day. Sort of like Mulder buried in a basement somewhere, I think there is a 'faction' of government that knows about close calls with asteroids..and other 'fun' stuff. I'm pretty sure they're not going to crawl out soon for an interview
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Feb 25, 2011 21:14:04 GMT -6
I dunno. I haven't worked for 'em in several years, but I would like to think that I do know the difference between (you know what) and shinola. I at least have that going for me. And my father, who worked for 'em for over 40 years, knows a great deal more than I do. No offense intended, BW. I am sure there are a few government people who know what they are doing. That's why I said most instead of all. I was actually thinking more along the lines of politicians rather than real people. They give everybody else a bad name. I have a friend who was a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force. He worked at the Pentagon and wrote the SALT2 treaty. I would say he knew what he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Mar 3, 2011 9:02:34 GMT -6
The Sarasota Herald Tribune
Devoid
Just keep it at arm’s lengthMarch 2nd, 2011 11:18am by Billy Cox Astronomers knew the Kepler telescope would be a boon to NASA’s planet hunters, but last month even the experts were stunned by the early returns. The space agency’s orbiting photometer had discovered a whopping 1,235 planetary candidates, 68 of which were Earth-sized, and 54 languished in “Goldilocks zones,” capable of hosting liquid water and sustaining life as we know it. The new numbers will have to run the peer-reviewed gauntlet before they can be officially entered into the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, a database already swollen with 530 confirmed planets outside our solar system, and expanding at a rate of 33 new entries a year. Inevitably, we’re going to learn the universe is percolating with life. But we may also have to ask, “Which universe?” Because pinning UFOs on ET might not be a slam dunk after all. In UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies and Realities, former Los Alamos project manager John Alexander argues the ET hypothesis is too limited, and proposes “precognitive sentient phenomena” — or the linkage of human consciousness — with whatever external reality UFOs are all about. “It appears as though that [external] agent not only determines all factors of the event,” he writes, “but is already (i.e., precognitively) aware of how the observers or researchers will respond to any given stimuli.” As with exoplanets, science is actually trying to catch up to the math behind freaky but transient observable phenomena. Sometimes even National Public Radio covers it. In January, physicist bob Greene gave a great interview to NPR as he promoted his new book, The Hidden Reality, which speculates on where experimental chambers like the Large Hadron Collider might eventually take us. The unimaginable, he contends, is waiting for us in multiple universes. “In some,” Greene writes, “the parallel universes are separated from us by enormous stretches of space or time; in others, they’re hovering millimeters away; in others still, the very notion of their location proves parochial, devoid of meaning. “A similar range of possibility is manifest in the laws governing the parallel universes. In some, the laws are the same as in ours; in others, they appear different but have shared a heritage; in others still, the laws are of a form and structure unlike anything we’ve ever encountered. It’s at once humbling and stirring to imagine just how expansive reality may be.” And as long as that expansive reality remains distant and theoretical, and nobody mentions the “U” word, the media’s all over it. Share and Enjoy: devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/11683/just-keep-it-at-arms-length/comment-page-1/?pa=all&tc=pgall
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Mar 3, 2011 19:49:01 GMT -6
So all we have to do to have credibility is to stop saying UFO? Silly me...why didn't I think of that?
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 3, 2011 20:11:19 GMT -6
2/26/2011
I belong to an "E-mail Group" of individuals, engineers and professional people, primarily, who are interested in ufology. Lately, we have been discussing Col. John Alexander's new book and comparing his conviction of "no government conspiracy" to the conviction of Rich Dolan of "rampant conspiracy".
One of the group happens to be at the current UFO Congress and is reporting to us on the proceedings. Here are his comments so far. Hope you find them interesting!
**********************************************************************************************************
Hi All,
From the International UFO Congress News Desk (a.k.a., me)….
Day 1
Alexander spoke today at the International UFO Congress so at least I can review his lecture for the group. There were times during the lecture that I felt Alexander was quite sincere and interested in establishing the UFO reality while simultaneously clearing out the UFOlogy ‘bush’ of all the crap that had accumulated on it (the way a soldier might clear a battlefield of debris). He spoke as if he believed what he said and he supported his arguments well. Given how much crap is being promulgated at this conference, his approach was indeed a breath of fresh air.
I can see why Alexander will upset a lot of people. He certainly caused tension in the lecture hall. His very straightforward (at times blunt) dismissal of ideas held dear by many in the audience caused a great deal of mumbling and a few suppressed laughs. Alexander clearly anticipated this when at the outset he said he was aware neither “true believers” nor “debunkers” would like what he had to say. He even had a PowerPoint slide detailing the reactions he has elicited, including that some are accusing him of being “the new Phil Klass”.
Paul, thanks for sharing Spiegel’s AOL article. It does a nice job summarizing Alexander’s position (and saves me a lot of typing). The only thing covered in the article that was not in the lecture was Alexander’s support that Roswell was in fact a crash of a Project Mogul balloon that the Air Force could not discuss at the time because it was highly classified. Usually he was very logical and supported his arguments well, though the article offered no documentation to support that conclusion, which was also often true in the lecture (his slides contained good data but when he spoke off the slides he made numerous unsupported proclamations). I also noticed several errors in his thinking caused by his strict adherence to logical arguments that ended up sounding like rationalizations:
1. Although many of his assertions were supported by statistics, I experienced many to be dismissive proclamations whose truth hung on his being an insider who understands how the system actually works (as opposed to UFOlogists who do not).
2. Although he produced much documentation to falsify the claims of both true believers and debunkers, documentation from other UFOlogists that would tend to falsify his claims was simply not addressed.
3. His supreme confidence in how our system of checks and balances works sidesteps many well documented examples of when that system failed to function properly, giving the impression that he was a “good soldier”.
4. I especially took exception to his reasoning about why (in theory) the government has no motivation to cover up the phenomenon, which goes something like this:
a. The high quality data that shows UFOs are real is overwhelming [Agreed]
b. Acknowledgement of the UFO reality is not “career-enhancing” and so individuals choose to deny the truth [Agreed that individuals have motives to deny the truth, but so do institutions]
c. There is no institutional denial of the UFO reality, even if individual representatives from the military or government agencies are quoted as denying this fact [While there may be no overt policy preventing representatives of Air Force, NASA, and other agencies from being transparent with what they know, there at least appears to be a covert culture of repression that could be reversed if these institutions explicitly admitted the UFO reality]
d. 80% of U.S. citizens already believe UFOs are real, and so disclosure would elicit a reaction like, “So tell me something I don’t already know!” Therefore there will be no War of the Worlds – type reaction [That is the most blatant rationalization. Intellectual understanding that UFOs exist, which is measured by a survey, has little to do with emotional reactions. I may be 80% sure that UFOs exist, and yet panic when a fleet of 300 foot diameter disks materializes above my house. As a military man he must know the difference between intellectual and emotional understanding since psychological warfare techniques like “Shock and Awe” is standard practice, which makes his apparent igannance on this issue highly suspect]
e. The main subgroup that resists looking at the UFO reality is the scientific community, which statistics show has a very different and much more narrow worldview than the mainstream population when it comes to paranormal phenomena and religious beliefs. But since no politician will risk his/her career, including POTUS, and since there is also no “truth” agency in our government tasked with confronting the scientific community with its closed mindedness, the denial system of the scientific community cannot be corrected by government institutions [Agreed that this seems to be the case in the U.S. But since it is much less true in other countries like France (COMETA report), we need to ask why is the U.S. different?]
f. Disclosure has been happening since Truman, and the quotes from world leaders stating that UFOs are real have been in the public domain ever since [Actually wide dissemination of these facts did not occur until the Internet and YouTube evolved, and is still limited to the fringe group (like Maquis) willing to sift through the crap to find the truth. Also, institutions appear to work against disclosure, such as when the UFO topic was removed from the Air Force Training Manual in the early 1970s]
g. No-one alleging the existence of a UFO cover-up has produced strong evidence for this and many assertions reveal the author’s naivety about how the system works (he specifically took Steven Bassett to task for alleging in his letter to Obama that citizens have been killed to maintain secrecy) [That is a generalization and proclamation that can only be assessed by debating the evidence put forth in support of a cover-up]
h. The Air Force did use the Condon Report to get out of the UFO business, but because it is charged with defending the skies and wanted to get back to doing its job rather than to cover up the UFO reality per se. He put the blame for having pre-existing negative conclusions not supported by the body of the report on Condon’s shoulders rather than on the Air Force [This may be correct, but it is also unfair to blame Condon because being deceased he is not here to set the record straight]
i. Occam’s Razor suggests the simpler hypothesis is that there is no institutional cover-up that would require huge resources and coordination. Rather the cover-up is completely by individuals [There is no doubt in my mind that a massive, well-coordinated cover-up is unlikely and that individuals’ denial systems are a big part of why people deny the UFO reality. But it is also true that more than one force may be active at a time. This may not be an “either-or” choice, since both individual and institutional denial may be at work. In fact I would call that the simpler hypothesis since we psychology and sociology are not mutually exclusive]
It will be interesting to see how Richard Dolan, Leslie Kean and Steven Bassett respond to Alexander’s arguments. To be continued…
On the other hand there were times when I wondered if he was the current mouthpiece of those holding whatever knowledge exists in the government in an effort to spin the truth. In other words, I imagined his book as a reaction to Dolan’s account of secret UFO history in order to take a step towards disclosure by admitting the evidence for UFOs is overwhelming while simultaneously absolving decision-makers of culpability. He was saying to UFOlogy, “put up or shut up”. It was an overt challenge to UFOlogists to prove the government cover-up exists. But it also felt like it might have been a way of stating how the government plans to approach disclosure – by pretending it knew no more than anyone else. No congressional investigations. No prosecutions. No evidence.
Interestingly I spoke with both Dolan and Bassett afterwards. They were trying to arrange an impromptu debate between them and Alexander during the conference. Dolan also said he plans to spend the first ten minutes of his lecture tomorrow analyzing Alexander’s comments. It should be interesting. Of course I will report to the group the outcome.
And for whatever it’s worth, I do not see Dolan as paranoid at all (and I think I am qualified to make that diagnosis). I see him as putting forth a credible hypothesis that is worth considering – whether or not it is correct.”
Day 2
The good news is that today’s lectures were all very good (essentially crap-less). Filer did a nice job documenting his own experiences in the military and cases in which UFO intercepts were classified and denied. Dolan’s lecture was excellent, but largely from his A.D. book. He did spend a lot of time documenting the evidence for a cover-up in order to answer Alexander, who he said he respected and who he complimented despite disagreeing with him. David Sereda was ill (thankfully), which allowed time for the promised debate. Nancy Talbott showed a slew of interesting pictures of light balls, bars and circles as well as ghosts that kept turning up when photographing crop circles (with a wide variety of cameras owned by different people) in the Netherlands (I think) and when she spent time with a purported psychic who lives there. Linda Moulton Howe gave many new details (at least to me) in the Rendlesham Forest case and had one of the witnesses, James Penniston, discuss his experience.
Bassett somehow missed (chickened out on???) the debate with Alexander. But Stanton Friedman took his place with Daniel Sheehan moderating. In a nutshell, the “debate” turned out to be more like Sheehan taking Alexander’s deposition. Sheehan was clearly not neutral, which irritated some in the audience that were (surprisingly to me) sympathetic towards Alexander. However the majority in the audience was obviously pleased to see Sheehan dismantle Alexander’s position on several key points. Actually Friedman was more sympathetic towards Alexander’s position than Sheehan, though he disagreed that there is no cover-up. A brief summary of the key positions Sheehan got Alexander to waiver on (after extreme resistance to making a clear statement) is as follows:
1. Based on his extensive contacts if there was a cover-up, he would know about it.
a. Alexander said he admitted in his book that there could be a cover-up that he did not know about, but he found that to be highly unlikely and the less simple hypothesis.
b. He also believed that by now the system of checks and balances in our system would have exposed such a complex cover-up as has been alleged by UFOlogists.
c. Sheehan listed several examples of complex government cover-ups that were only exposed by people outside the government, including his own exposure of the Iran-Contra affair, and cited the fact that high government officials denied the truth up to the end because their jobs were on the line.
d. He also got Alexander to admit that the people he spoke with could have been lying to him.
e. Alexander cited the case of the Glomar-Explorer where the ship was secretly used to raise a sunken Soviet submarine as an example of how the system did work to uncover the truth.
f. Sheehan countered by correcting Alexander’s history. In fact the Glomar-Explorer was secretly constructed as a tool to build underwater ballistic missile sites on the edge of the continental shelf in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty the U.S. had signed, a fact that was also uncovered by people outside of the government.
2. Based on the statistic that 80% of people already believe in UFOs and the probability of extraterrestrial life, overt disclosure would be a non-issue.
a. Sheehan challenged the idea that intellectual belief translates into emotional acceptance.
b. He gave several examples of how easily large groups of people panicked despite intellectually understanding the situation they were in.
c. He also quoted the Catholic Church’s concern that the eight worldviews that currently exist in the human race all stand on the idea that humans are the supreme achievement of God - envisioning humans as the most intelligent and advanced of all creatures – and that disclosure that we are actually a young civilization in a universe/multiverse filled with many more advanced civilizations will be traumatic because it will require the rapid creation of a new worldview.
d. He also cited anthropological evidence that every primitive human civilization that made contact with more advanced civilizations not only had to change their worldviews, but were ultimately destroyed (via implosion) by the more advanced civilizations.
e. Alexander countered that disclosure has already happened and has not had that effect.
f. Sheehan got Alexander to admit that most people are unaware of the facts about UFOs that have been disclosed and that there has been resistance by government and media institutions to disseminate the facts.
g. Alexander cited the evidence that it is the scientific community that most strongly resists paranormal ideas.
h. Sheehan asked Alexander if he would recommend a scientific study reviewing the available UFO evidence in order to get organized science to look at the data, and asked if he would support such a study if it was sponsored by Open Minds and funded by IUFO Congress members who each donated $5 to the cause.
i. Alexander agreed that would be a start, but said he did not believe it would change most scientists’ minds.
j. Friedman agreed with Alexander on that point, but suggested a study that looks at the media’s resistance to digging deeply on this issue would be more productive because he felt it is the media’s complicity with the cover-up is actually the biggest problem.
k. Sheehan said he would take up the idea with Open Minds.
3. Based on the fact that “UFOs” refer to everything from balls of light to mile-wide structured craft, we are not yet at the point that we can even frame the proper questions to address the issue (it is simply too big for government to handle).
a. Sheehan spent ten minutes trying to get Alexander to answer the question of whether he believed at least some UFOs are ET craft.
b. Alexander tried everything he could to avoid stating that opinion, for example by citing the highly strange observation of UFOs breaking into two and then reassembling to make the point that ET craft is too simple an explanation.
c. Sheehan doggedly pursued this, citing the examples Alexander gave in his book and asking if he thought any one of them was most likely an ET craft.
d. Alexander cited alternative hypotheses like inter-dimensional and time-traveling craft, but finally admitted he believed several of them were most likely ET craft.
Unfortunately at this late hour I can’t recall the rest of the debate. Sheehan also gave a lecture on the philosophical and theological implications of disclosure and once again (like last year) had a group discussion to assess the IUFO Congress attendees’ interest in participating in what he called a “ministry” to help the public think about the issues that inevitably will come up in order to minimize trauma. He said unlike last year, they now have a website to organize the group (www.OpenSkiesMinistry.org) and will soon be launching a social network for anyone interested in participating. I told him I would pass this information on to the members in case they were interested (which I am).
Sheehan gave what I thought was quite good evidence that the government does work that way at times. Perhaps the system only breaks down when people in power do things they know they should not be doing, such as when extraordinarily dangerous events are taking place, and is therefore uncommon. Internal checks and balances would normally have prevented banks from being sloppy and unethical with their reviews and paperwork as has been proven during the foreclosure crisis. Events happening right now in the middle east are clearly not business as usual, including the tragic decisions made by those in power. Certainly emergency situations bring out both the best and worst in people.
In 1947, the appearance of large numbers of flying saucers over a war-weary country that was for the first time dealing with that the fact that Soviets could launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack before we had an adequate way of defending ourselves constituted one of the biggest emergency situations in human history. The intelligence and military response to this novel situation must also not have been business as usual. And I thought Dolan’s review of the documentation trail from that era was excellent. The fact that we don’t have all the puzzle pieces (as would be expected because of what we even military folks without a need to know are kept out of the look (as discussed by Filer and Pattison) does not mean there is no cover-up.
I look forward to reporting what the Hon. Paul Hollyer (former Canadian Defense Minister), Leslie Kean and Col. Halt have to say on the matter later today.
More to come…
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 3, 2011 20:16:06 GMT -6
I have had a number of friends recently comment encouraging me to read a copy of Mr. Alexander's new book. They are telling me the book is even well written and an enjoyable read too. With the notable exception of Leslie Kean - qualities many UFO or conspiracy books has been lacking lately. Quoting from the above blog: "Sheehan countered by correcting Alexander’s history. In fact the Glomar-Explorer was secretly constructed as a tool to build underwater ballistic missile sites on the edge of the continental shelf in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty the U.S. had signed, a fact that was also uncovered by people outside of the government."Related to this above comment - Sheehan here is totally obserd! Read a brilliant book about this topic: 'Blind Man's Bluff: The untold story of American submarine espionage' by Sherry Sontag & Christopher Drew. My copy autographed by Sherry too! Steve
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Mar 4, 2011 17:18:08 GMT -6
Hi, Steve. I didn't know you were at the UFO conference. That's pretty cool. Thanks for giving us the detailed info about what went on there. I can't wait to hear more. I do have a few comments and questions about what I have read so far. When speaking of John Alexander's lecture you said: "Given how much crap is being promulgated at this conference, his approach was indeed a breath of fresh air."Can you give us some examples of what you consider to be "crap" that you were hearing at the lecture? I have never been to one of these major symposiums so I am not really familiar with what most lecturers talk about. Is it the usual tin-foil hat crowd with their usual nonsense? When referring to Alexander's reasons for believing there is no cover-up you stated: "Occam’s Razor suggests the simpler hypothesis is that there is no institutional cover-up that would require huge resources and coordination. Rather the cover-up is completely by individuals [There is no doubt in my mind that a massive, well-coordinated cover-up is unlikely and that individuals’ denial systems are a big part of why people deny the UFO reality. But it is also true that more than one force may be active at a time. This may not be an “either-or” choice, since both individual and institutional denial may be at work. In fact I would call that the simpler hypothesis since we psychology and sociology are not mutually exclusive]"I personally believe that there is an international cover-up of the UFO phenomenon, but it is not coordinated between different countries, or even different agencies in one country. In fact, many agencies may actually have different objectives and motivations for the things that they do. For instance, the military (or the people in the military that are aware of it) might engage in a cover-up simply because the information is classified and UFOs (if they are real) could be a potential threat to national security. Until they understand exactly what it is they are dealing with they will keep it classified. Those few who do know what they are dealing might want to engage in a cover-up in order to obtain some UFO-related objective, whether that be trying to obtain the advanced technology these UFOs possess, or preventing a widespread panic among the population, or something else entirely. Different people and different groups may in fact have different agendas with different motivations behind them. At the same time that some people in the military are trying to cover up the fact that UFOs are real, there may be other people in the military who are actually trying to convince people that UFOs are real (whether they know they are or not). I have heard stories of Air Force pilots who put extra lights on their planes and flew around doing acrobatic maneuvers in order to fool people on the ground into thinking they were seeing UFOs. When the military later admitted the lights people were seeing were nothing but planes the UFO enthusiasts were discredited and made to look like fools. Since many "UFOs" are actually Top Secret military weapons that are being tested it would be beneficial to discredit anybody who may have seen and described them, and making people believe in UFOs (while discrediting them at the same time) is a good way to cover up the actual military weapons that exist. If the UFOs really are extraterrestrial craft then it would also be beneficial for the military to discredit witnesses in order to to preserve the secrecy that surrounds the study of them. Considering all of the different angles and agendas that may be taking place, the different levels of secrecy, the different governments, agencies and people involved, the amount of time it has been going on, an international cover-up could end up being a huge tangled mess that is impossible for anybody to unravel. I doubt that there is any one person who actually knows the entire truth about what is really going on. Some people may know bits and pieces of it, some may know more than others, but nobody knows everything. I personally do not think there will ever be any government disclosure about UFOs simply because the government has no reason to do so. It doesn't matter if 80% of the people believe in them or not. Look at how many people believe that Area 51 exists. You can walk out there in the desert and look at it, see it, touch it, but the government won't acknowledge that it is there. There is no beneficial reason for them to reveal the truth about it. UFOs are the same way. The only way the government would ever admit that UFOs are real is if a fleet of them invaded the planet and started hovering over each of the major cities like they did in the movies Independence Day and Signs. At that point people are not going to care why the truth had not been released earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 5, 2011 18:05:26 GMT -6
Some important clarification. I was not at the UFO conference. The post is a message which was forwarded to me innocently by Mr. Paul Young. He belongs to a group who exchange such within their 'group'. I am also not apart of this group. But Paul was kind enough to share it with me. I thought it was interesting, and perhaps useful in discussions about Mr. Alexander's new book. Thank you for including me Paul your message, hope they will continue, but now understanding there are certain conditions which maybe attached. Steve
|
|