Is this evidence that we can see the future?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By

Peter Aldhous

 Extraordinary claims don’t come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven’t yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What’s more, skeptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can’t find any significant flaws. “My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can’t be true,” says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. “Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn’t see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order.”

Critical mass

The paper, due to appear in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology before the end of the year, is the culmination of eight years’ work by Daryl Bem of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. “I purposely waited until I thought there was a critical mass that wasn’t a statistical fluke,” he says.

It describes a series of experiments involving more than 1000 student volunteers. In most of the tests, Bem took well-studied psychological phenomena and simply reversed the sequence, so that the event generally interpreted as the cause happened after the tested behaviour rather than before it.

In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list.  Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type.

In another study, Bem adapted research on “priming” – the effect of a subliminally presented word on a person’s response to an image. For instance, if someone is momentarily flashed the word “ugly”, it will take them longer to decide that a picture of a kitten is pleasant than if “beautiful” had been flashed. Running the experiment back-to-front, Bem found that the priming effect seemed to work backwards in time as well as forwards.

‘Stroke of genius’

Exploring time-reversed versions of established psychological phenomena was “a stroke of genius”, says the skeptical Krueger. Previous research in parapsychology has used idiosyncratic set-ups such as Ganzfeld experiments, in which volunteers listen to white noise and are presented with a uniform visual field to create a state allegedly conducive to effects including clairvoyance and telepathy. By contrast, Bem set out to provide tests that mainstream psychologists could readily evaluate.

The effects he recorded were small but statistically significant. In another test, for instance, volunteers were told that an erotic image was going to appear on a computer screen in one of two positions, and asked to guess in advance which position that would be. The image’s eventual position was selected at random, but volunteers guessed correctly 53.1 per cent of the time.

For a more detailed commentary on what’s being discussed here, check out chapters 13 & 14 within Aliens Above, Ghosts Below: Explorations of the Unknown” on Amazon.com, Barnes & Nobel.com and at www.cosmicpantheon.com.

That may sound unimpressive – truly random guesses would have been right 50 per cent of the time, after all. But well-established phenomena such as the ability of low-dose aspirin to prevent heart attacks are based on similarly small effects, notes Melissa Burkley of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, who has also blogged about Bem’s work at Psychology Today.

Respect for a maverick

So far, the paper has held up to scrutiny. “This paper went through a series of reviews from some of our most trusted reviewers,” says Charles Judd of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who heads the section of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology editorial board that handled the paper.

Indeed, although Bem is a self-described “maverick” with a long-standing interest in paranormal phenomena, he is also a respected psychologist with a reputation for running careful experiments. He is best known for the theory of self-perception, which argues that people infer their attitudes from their own behaviour in much the same way as they assess the attitudes of others.

Bem says his paper was reviewed by four experts who proposed amendments, but still recommended publication. Still, the journal will publish a sceptical editorial commentary alongside the paper, says Judd. “We hope it spurs people to try to replicate these effects.”

One failed attempt at replication has already been posted online. In this study, Jeff Galak of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Leif Nelson of the University of California, Berkeley, employed an online panel called Consumer Behavior Lab in an effort to repeat Bem’s findings on the recall of words.

Bem argues that online surveys are inconclusive, because it’s impossible to know whether volunteers have paid sufficient attention to the task. Galak concedes that this is a limitation of the initial study, but says he is now planning a follow-up involving student volunteers that will more closely repeat the design of Bem’s word-recall experiment.

This seems certain to be just the first exchange in a lively debate: Bem says that dozens of researchers have already contacted him requesting details of the work.

RANDI’S CHALLENGE: A Big “So What!”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By

Loyd Auerbach, M.S.

Note: This essay was published as the majority of my “Psychic Frontiers” column in the February 2004 issue of FATE magazine.

I might actually title this essay “Why I no longer care about Randi’s One Million Dollar Challenge,” but honestly, “So What!” sums up my feelings these days.

Over the last several years, I’ve been somewhat outspoken about the specific details of the rules of Randi’s Challenge (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html). But recently, when being harassed by yet another disbelieving type about the test, some kind of light – an epiphany of sorts – went on in my head. The individual made a statement, with a question, that I often hear in variations from self-described Skeptics (actually disbelievers): “The Amazing Randi offers one million dollars for anyone who can demonstrate something paranormal. If psychic abilities are real, why has no one won the prize?”

Rather than responding as I have in the past with a discourse as to why I don’t believe anyone will win that money, I spontaneously switched gears.

The following is just an approximation of the conversation, with (yes, I admit it) a little dramatic license thrown in.

“What would that prove?” I asked.

“Huh?” said the Skeptic.

“Why is Randi offering the money?” I asked.

“For anyone who can prove something paranormal,” said the Skeptic.

“If someone did win the million, what would that actually prove?” I asked.

“Huh?” said the Skeptic.

“I mean, if a psychic won the million dollars, other than the psychic walking away one million dollars richer, what would that prove to the skeptical community or to Science?” I asked.

“That someone could do something psychic,” said the Skeptic with some confusion in his voice.

“Would it? If someone won Randi’s million dollars, would YOU accept that psychic abilities are real? Or even just possible?” I asked.

“Huh?” said the Skeptic.

“Would mainstream Science accept the probability of psi, if not the reality, if some psychic won Randi’s million?” I asked.

“Uh … uh … huh?” said the Skeptic.

“Would the organized Skeptics accept that psi is real, or would they be more likely to believe that Randi was simply fooled, scammed out of his million? Would you?” I asked.

I received a blank stare from the Skeptic, then saw confusion appearing on his face.

I continued to push at him. “The fact is that people who do not accept the laboratory and other evidence for psi that already exists are unlikely to change their minds or their beliefs simply because someone beats Randi’s challenge and wins Randi’s money. In the name of Science, many keep raising the issue of parsimony, of Occam’s Razor where psi is concerned. In this case, wouldn’t the simpler explanation as far as the Skeptics are concerned be that Randi was scammed out of the money? In the name of Science, many raise the issue of repeatability. If someone beat Randi’s Challenge once, how does this meet the criteria of repeatability? What does this prove?”

The Skeptic was silent, confusion and frustration (and a little anger) continuing on his face.

I finished with “If you can honestly tell me – I mean look me in the eye and tell me honestly – that you would be open to psi’s existence if a psychic won Randi’s money, I’ll give you 20 dollars** right here and now. It’s not a million, but to be honest, your opinion isn’t worth that much to me.”

He walked away (okay, he stormed off).

**[Note: Okay, I didn’t really offer the 20 bucks when this first happened. I only thought of it afterwards. But now, I often do!]

I’ve since used this argument on a few others, whenever Randi’s Challenge is raised like a weapon against the field of Parapsychology, and against the existence (real or just potential) of psi.

To recap: If someone wins Randi’s million, he/she will be one million dollars richer. However, as far as Science and the Skeptics are concerned, the simpler answer to this conundrum is that Randi (or his chosen panel of judges) was fooled.

In other words, So What if someone wins the money. It won’t change the prevailing attitudes towards parapsychology, or the prevailing beliefs of most who waiver to the disbelieving side of the center where psi is concerned.

As this is the case (go ahead…prove me wrong, somebody…please!), we waste our time even giving Randi’s Challenge the time of day (though I am somewhat in his corner where Sylvia Browne is concerned. – see his website at www.randi.org).

I respect the position of true skeptics, and even the beliefs and opinions of debunkers if they’re honest about their beliefs and opinions. But holding forth Randi’s Challenge as the benchmark for proof of the paranormal is as silly as someone telling Randi to “prove it does not exist.”

It’s not a benchmark for Science, or even for skepticism. So, why should we care?

“So What!” I say.

Let me finish with another observation.

In the September 19, 2003 issue of SWIFT, Online Newsletter of the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) entitled “Yellow Bamboo Surprise, Fear of Technology, and Answering Montague Keen…” (http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html), Randi responds to comments by researcher Montague Keen, who (Keen) mentions me and FATE in his discussion of Randi’s Challenge. Randi had this to say about FATE:

“For those unfamiliar with Fate Magazine, from their own web page we see that they publish stories on ‘alien abductions, angels, archaeological hotspots, fringe science, ghosts, hauntings, life after death, monsters, paranormal investigations, psychic pets, psychics, readers’ personal mystic experiences, reports of the strange and unknown, spirit animals, spiritualists, and UFOs’ — to only begin. Not recognized as a scholarly journal, in my opinion.”

Randi’s correct. In no way could FATE be labeled a “scholarly journal.” It is a publication for the general public. While I’m not sure where on FATE’s website Randi got the quote from (as with many websites, FATE’s changes from time to time), what Randi lists is in fact a good description for FATE’s content coverage.

However, this could easily be a description of the contents of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER and THE SKEPTIC magazines, neither of which is recognized as a “scholarly journal.” Of course, that’s my opinion.

Dr. Barry Taff: A Veteran Of The Psychic Wars

By

Sean Casteel and John Weigle

Dr. Barry Taff has been on the forefront of the academic study of psychic phenomena for decades and has long documented the connection between psi events and UFOs. His own psychic experiences began in childhood, and he has no doubt of the reality of some form of coupling between human consciousness and a field of energy that we do not as yet understand.

Taff spoke on March 9, 2013, at a meeting of the Close Encounter Research Organization, which earlier this year added the word “international” to its name and is seeking to branch out worldwide in the dissemination of UFO and alien abduction information. The meeting was held in Thousand Oaks, California, a city located just north of Los Angeles.

Taff opened his lecture by reciting part of a poem by T.S. Elliot that Taff felt eloquently expressed the fluid nature of time and the human mind:

“Time present and time past,” the poem reads, in part, “Are both perhaps present in time future. And time future contained in time past. If all time is eternally present, All time is unredeemable. What might have been is an abstraction, Remaining a perpetual possibility.”

Taff moved on to declare, “There is no paranormal. It’s normal.” He said that long-term memories are not stored in our brains, they’re kept in a remote source outside of us, which relates to the T.S. Elliot poem and his grappling with the nature of memory and time.

From there, Taff began to recount his own history of psychic experiences, beginning with an incident that happened when he was ten years old. In grade school, a young girl approached him and he asked her what the weird bag was that she was wearing. He didn’t know at that age that such a bag was used after a colostomy. The young girl screamed and told the principal, who called Taff into his office and asked if he had looked under the girl’s dress or sneaked into the girls’ bathroom. Taff told the principal he had x-ray vision and pointed out that he could see that the principal had unhealed keloid scar tissue himself. The principal then called Taff’s parents, and they said, “Don’t ask.”

Taff joked that if he had a dollar for every one of his psychic experiences, he would be a whole lot wealthier.

As a child, Taff predicted the assassination of John Kennedy to his parents a couple of years before the event. His parents insisted on making a bet in the belief that young Taff would be proven wrong. They didn’t speak to Taff for ten days, he said, after the prediction came true.

In 1968, Taff was visiting a girlfriend at her house when he decided he wanted some iced tea, which his girlfriend didn’t keep around. At that same moment, Taff’s father saw Taff enter the house, go to the refrigerator and drink iced tea from the pitcher. But Taff had never left his girlfriend’s house. Although his parents never drank iced tea, the pitcher was partially empty the next morning, as though someone had drank from it prior to Taff’s seeing the pitcher of tea the next day.

It was difficult to photograph Taff as a child, he said, and once, when he and a colleague were visiting a TV show producer, a photograph was taken of Taff and his colleague in which the other person showed up perfectly but where Taff had been standing the photo showed only a flash of light.

With this strange history behind him, Taff became a researcher of psychic phenomena in an academic setting, eventually earning a doctorate in psychophysiology with a minor in biomedical engineering from UCLA in 1975. From 1970 to 1987, he was involved in the study of remote viewing.

“What we saw blew us away,” he said.

When using the techniques of remote viewing, according to Taff, both past and future information are available, and it is possible to see information from a great distance. The evidence suggests that our brain, consciousness and space-time work in the same way. As part of the testing of remote viewing, Taff and his associates were given remote viewing “targetsand when they reported what they saw, they provided   information on Trident submarines. The tape recordings made of the remote viewing experiments were later confiscated by representatives of an unnamed intelligence agency because of the classified details contained therein. Taff and his group later performed additional work for intelligence agencies with mixed results.

Unfortunately, Taff said, when understanding the implications of remote viewing and the nature of time, one is forced to conclude that there is no such thing as free will. He offered a story by way of example. In college, he was working with a girl in the psych lab when he had a dream of her going home and being involved in a car accident. In the dream, he saw a driver he thought was himself, so he broke off the relationship in the hope that he could change the future. The girl got involved with another man, and he was the driver in the accident that occurred. Nothing could alter the fulfillment of the precognitive dream, and thus the will of the participants was not free.

“I’ve lost a lot of friends and colleagues because of my work in this field,” Taff lamented, because they were frightened or put off by what he said or things that occurred in his presence.

Taff’s work on the case that became the novel “The Entity” brought him some degree of fame. In August 1974, he and some of his colleagues in parapsychology met a woman who said her house was haunted and that she had been repeatedly raped by ghosts. Taff wrote a big “P” on her report form, meaning he considered it a psychiatric case. Then the woman’s neighbors started seeing things. A skillet flew out of a cupboard. The bedroom felt like it was refrigerated, but it wasn’t. There was an odor of decaying matter. A green light double the size of Taff’s fist appeared and slowly turned into the form of an upper torso. When it disappeared, two of Taff’s assistants passed out.

The team later sealed off the rooms to prevent any light from coming in and prepared a grid on the walls so they could pinpoint any strange things that happened. They shot hundreds of frames of film that showed nothing unusual, but everyone saw things in the room during the filming. The team members wrote down their observations before conferring together and found that their stories matched when they discussed them.

Taff helped write the eventual novel “The Entity,” saying that not everything in the book actually happened. He appears as the slightly fictionalized character “Gene Kraft.” A movie starring Barbara Hershey and Ron Silver was released in 1983. A capsule recounting of the plot is included in “Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide” that reads, in part, “A woman is raped repeatedly by a giant, invisible mass. Her psychiatrist thinks it’s all in the mind until parapsychologists set a trap for the critter.”

There is an article posted on Taff’s website at http://barrytaff.net entitled “The Psi-UFO Connection: What On Earth Is Going On?” In it, Taff writes of a rather fascinating yet obscure relationship between paranormal experiences and UFO encounters.

“Why is it that many CE-III’s and IV’s have paranormal fallout following the event?” he asks. “Why is it that certain people who have frequent paranormal experiences are more likely to experience a UFO encounter?”

Taff goes on to say that it is obviously not scientifically valid to try to explain one phenomenon by recourse to the other, but there is a “longitudinal continuity” between the two kinds of events that may one day help to explain them both.

In his lecture to CERO International, he offered the case history of Judy, another woman with whom he was romantically involved. There is a more detailed version of the story in the aforementioned article on his website.

“I met a beautiful girl on Valentine’s Day (1977) while investigating a case in the mid-Wilshire district of Los Angeles,” Taff writes. “This girl was so physically stunning to me that it was impossible to stop staring at her.”

The case he was investigating was a very weak one and no follow up work was done. But he and Judy ended up in a very intense relationship. As time passed, there were repeated episodes of RSPK (Recurrent Spontaneous Psycho-Kinesis) activity culminating in “a large glowing sphere of light emerging from the lumbar region of her back” while Taff was giving her a massage. The clocks in Judy’s condo would all frequently “desynchronize” and run at different speeds.

“All of this paranormal activity was kind of an added bonus to being in a relationship with her,” Taff writes. “At least I thought it was. Boy, was I wrong.”

Taff writes that they both felt it was a perfect relationship and that Judy turned out to be a gifted psychic who also worked with the psi training groups at the UCLA lab as well as on missing persons cases. Taff expected that he and Judy would be engaged within six months, but “fate had something else in mind.” He began to have repeated precognitive dreams in which he was given the message that their romance would end on July 22, 1977. The reasons for the split were never provided in the dreams.

He never told Judy about the dreams because she might misinterpret what he said as expressing a desire to leave her. The dreams stopped, and his happiness was restored. When July 22 came around, he had almost forgotten the dreams entirely. He awoke to find Judy beside him in bed, sobbing and shivering under the covers. She asked Taff why he hadn’t helped her the previous night.

When Taff asked her what she meant, she told him that she “had awakened to find the room brilliantly lit, but the lights were not on. She was levitated up out of the bed, eventually finding herself in a round, metallic-walled room where she was strapped to a metallic table around her wrists, neck, ankles and abdomen. There were tiny men who had skin like a snake or reptile and a face without ears or noses, with large black eyes, who were poking and prodding her everywhere, but especially in every bodily orifice.”

Judy could hear the little men speaking though their lipless mouths were not moving.

“They kept saying that they weren’t going to hurt her, even though that’s exactly what they were doing. The next thing she remembered was waking up in bed with me soundly sleeping next to her.”

Taff writes that he asked her if she knew anything about UFO abductions, which she did not. Although she was very interested in the paranormal, UFOs held no interest for her. Taff finally coaxed her out from beneath the covers and was shocked to find that Judy had bruises at her neck, waist, wrists, abdomen and ankles – consistent with her claim that she had been restrained on the metallic table. And she was bleeding from every orifice, bearing out her story that she had been poked and prodded in those same locations.

Judy subsequently had a complete breakdown, “becoming almost totally delusional with overt signs of dissociation. She never sought any help from anyone and she never, even marginally, recovered. She became a religious zealot, but of a very unusual type. Needless to say, our relationship ended on that day, just as my dream had predicted. From occasional contact with her over the subsequent years, she claims to have been re-abducted many times. It’s one thing to lose a potential mate, but not to something like this.”

At the CERO International lecture, Taff touched on another case that he also writes about in the same online article. He received a phone call in the mid-1970s from a local television network executive who complained about poltergeist activity in his home. Over time, he reported occasional luminous anomalies, disembodied voices, banging noises and problems with electrical items in the house. Both the executive and his family seemed “quite grounded, normal, stable and well-adjusted.” Eventually the man’s calls ceased. Then one night, while the man and his wife were on a road trip in northern California, they saw what they thought was a small, burning plane about to crash into the hills to their right.

“They drove up to where they assumed the plane had crashed,” Taff writes, “and after rounding a bend, they ran into a very unexpected sight. A shocking and terrifying visage to say the least. Sitting on the ground in front of them was a classic flying saucer, maybe 30 to 50 feet in diameter. And if that wasn’t difficult to enough to absorb, there were several diminutive humanoids in tight-fitting flight suits moving around the area around the saucer, as if looking for something. The beings were about four feet tall with grayish-brown skin, large, black almond-shaped eyes with no apparent nose or outer ears. Classic grays in every respect.”

Suddenly, several of the humanoids became aware of the man and his wife sitting in their car observing the scene. One of the creatures pointed a tubular-shaped object at the couple that emitted a bright light. The next thing the pair remembered was being back on the highway many miles away and several hours later.

After experiencing this classic abduction scenario, the two began to have   disturbing dreams about their missing time, most of which they were reluctant to discuss with anyone. They sought psychological counseling but were assumed by mental health workers to have both had a psychotic break, for which medication was recommended. The abduction experience was little known in the mid-1970s, so this response from the mental health community is not surprising, Taff writes.

The man and his wife began to experience strong emotional mood swings, indicative of dramatically altered personalities. They eventually divorced, with the husband becoming particularly volatile and erratic, which led to his leaving his lucrative job in television in a newfound state of anxiety, anger and bitterness. What had begun as poltergeist activity had progressed to an alien UFO abduction and left great misery in its wake.

“We’re dealing with something far more advanced than we are,” Taff added during his lecture, “and technology that is like magic to us.”

But change is not the goal in physical science, he said, pointing to the fact that hardly anyone in mainstream science takes these issues seriously. There exists an inverse correlation between belief and whether new ideas will work, he said. What the scientists say won’t work will and what they say will work won’t. Imagine what would happen if a vehicle was unveiled tomorrow that used an entirely new form of energy. We need what Taff called “a change in the way we perceive normality.”

UFOs are the most classified information the government has, he continued. Add gray aliens to the mix of our own racial and ethnic problems, and one can imagine the results. We should not fear an alien invasion so much as the problems we’ve created for ourselves.

Both psychic phenomena and UFO contact involve an energy of a type we don’t understand, Taff said toward the end of his lecture. Most people are not sensitive to it and can live a long time without ever having any experiences with it. Others are sensitive to it.

“It’s there,” Taff said. “It’s real. We are always a (central) part of the equation.”

[Dr. Barry Taff is the author of the book “Aliens Above, Ghosts Below.” The website for CERO International is at www.cerointernational.com  Sean Casteel has a website at www.seancasteel.com]

Is The Universe The Result Of A Black Hole?

The Black Hole at the Birth of the Universe

August 7, 2014

 Our universe may have emerged from a black hole in a higher-dimensional universe, propose a trio of Perimeter Institute researchers in the cover story of the latest Scientific American.

The big bang poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it?

Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang. It’s a bit perplexing, but it is grounded in sound mathematics, testable, and enticing enough to earn the cover story in Scientific American, called “The Black Hole at the Beginning of Time.”

What we perceive as the big bang, they argue, could be the three-dimensional “mirage” of a collapsing star in a universe profoundly different than our own.

“Cosmology’s greatest challenge is understanding the big bang itself,” write Perimeter Institute Associate Faculty member Niayesh Afshordi, Affiliate Faculty member and University of Waterloo professor Robert Mann, and PhD student Razieh Pourhasan.

Conventional understanding holds that the big bang began with a singularity – an unfathomably hot and dense phenomenon of spacetime where the standard laws of physics break down. Singularities are bizarre, and our understanding of them is limited.

“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” Afshordi says in an interview with Nature.

The problem, as the authors see it, is that the big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform, and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity. It seems unlikely.

So perhaps something else happened. Perhaps our universe was never singular in the first place.

Their suggestion: our known universe could be the three-dimensional “wrapping” around a four-dimensional black hole’s event horizon. In this scenario, our universe burst into being when a star in a four-dimensional universe collapsed into a black hole.

In our three-dimensional universe, black holes have two-dimensional event horizons – that is, they are surrounded by a two-dimensional boundary that marks the “point of no return.” In the case of a four-dimensional universe, a black hole would have a three-dimensional event horizon.

In their proposed scenario, our universe was never inside the singularity; rather, it came into being outside an event horizon, protected from the singularity. It originated as – and remains – just one feature in the imploded wreck of a four-dimensional star.

The researchers emphasize that this idea, though it may sound “absurd,” is grounded firmly in the best modern mathematics describing space and time. Specifically, they’ve used the tools of holography to “turn the big bang into a cosmic mirage.” Along the way, their model appears to address long-standing cosmological puzzles and – crucially – produce testable predictions.

Of course, our intuition tends to recoil at the idea that everything and everyone we know emerged from the event horizon of a single four-dimensional black hole. We have no concept of what a four-dimensional universe might look like. We don’t know how a four-dimensional “parent” universe itself came to be.

But our fallible human intuitions, the researchers argue, evolved in a three-dimensional world that may only reveal shadows of reality.

They draw a parallel to Plato’s allegory of the cave, in which prisoners spend their lives seeing only the flickering shadows cast by a fire on a cavern wall.

“Their shackles have prevented them from perceiving the true world, a realm with one additional dimension,” they write. “Plato’s prisoners didn’t understand the powers behind the sun, just as we don’t understand the four-dimensional bulk universe. But at least they knew where to look for answers.”

– Colin Hunter

 

FURTHER EXPLORATION

 

About Perimeter Institute

Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is an independent, non-profit, scientific research organization working to advance our understanding of physical laws and develop new ideas about the very essence of space, time, matter, and information. Located in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Perimeter also provides a wide array of research training and educational outreach activities to nurture scientific talent and share the importance of discovery and innovation among students, teachers, and the general public. In partnership with the Governments of Ontario and Canada, Perimeter is a successful example of public-private collaboration in scientific research, training, and outreach. http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/

For more information, contact:

Manager, External Relations and Public Affairs
(519) 569-7600 x5051

“Cosmology’s greatest challenge is understanding the big bang itself.”

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/black-hole-birth-universe
93070B7D-2AB9-9C18-AB40-1A028203032E
Y2:93070B7D-2AB9-9C18-AB40-1A028203032E

Remote Viewing Into Deep Space: A Stellar Performance

 

NASA’s Pioneer 10 spacecraft was launched into space in 1972. It was the the very first spacecraft to fly directly through the asteroid belt and make observations of the biggest planet in our solar system, Jupiter. It was also able to obtain close up images of the planet, something that scientists had never had access to before. (1)
Prior to the flyby of Jupiter by Pioneer 10, the CIA and NSA in conjunction with Stanford University were involved in what was called “Remote Viewing.”  Remote viewing can be defined in multiple ways. It’s the ability of individuals to describe a remote geographical location up to several hundred thousand kilometers away (sometimes even more) from their physical location.(2)(3)(4)
A gentlemen by the name of Ingo Swann was able to successfully describe and view a ring around Jupiter, a ring that scientists had no idea existed. This took place precisely before the first ever flyby of Jupiter by NASA’s Pioneer 10 spacecraft, which confirmed that the ring did actually exist. These results were published in advance of the rings’ discovery. (2)
The successful viewing of the ring by Ingo came after scientists observed him identify physical objects in hidden envelopes that were placed a few hundred kilometers away.
“Successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the [remote viewing] phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise. The CIA even participated as remote viewers themselves in order to critique the protocols. CIA personnel generated successful target descriptions of sufficiently high quality to permit blind matching of descriptions to targets by independent judges.”(2) –Harold Puthoff, PhD, Stanford University
“To determine whether it was necessary to have a “beacon” individual at the target site, Swann suggested carrying out an experiment to remote view the planet Jupiter before the upcoming NASA Pioneer 10 flyby. In that case, much to his chagrin (and ours) he found a ring around Jupiter, and wondered if perhaps he had remote viewed Saturn by mistake. Our colleagues in astronomy were quite unimpressed as well, until the flyby revealed that an unanticipated ring did in fact exist.” (2) – Harold Puthoff, PhD, Stanford University
It’s remarkable to think about these extended human capacities, and what we are capable of. At the same time it’s sobering to think about how all of this information isn’t emphasized, and always kept classified and hidden from the human race. It makes you wonder what other information out there remains classified that we don’t know about yet, and what other truths the remote viewing program has uncovered.

The Above Information Was Documented. Here’s What Wasn’t.

Here is a quote from Ingo’s book Penetration, where he goes into detail about phenomenon that was not documented in the literature cited throughout this article.

“It’s one thing to read about UFOs and stuff in the papers or in books. It is another to hear rumors about the military or government having an interest in such matters, rumors which say they have captured extraterrestrials and downed alien space craft. But it’s quite another matter to find oneself in a situation which confirms everything. I found towers, machinery, lights buildings, humanoids busy at work on something I couldn’t figure out (on the back side of the moon)”
The information now available in the public domain regarding the government experiments with remote viewing were declassified in 1995, but who knows how much of the program’s information remains classified. Ingo had expressed that the program was shut down because it was one of the biggest threats to government secrecy.
It’s quite remarkable that this information was kept secret for over 20 years. Prior to 1995, the public had absolutely no idea that this type of thing was going on, it was a special access program, part of the black budget, which still today deals with projects and information the human race knows nothing about.
 “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” – Nikola Tesla
Science has indeed studied non-physical phenomenon, for a very long time. Unfortunately, much of this science has been locked up within the classified world, and the remote viewing program (one of many) is a great example of that.
Source: Collective Evolution

Remote Viewing: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

Media


CSL Home

CSL LogoCIA/AIR Report

The American Institutes for Research Review
of the Department of Defense’s
STAR GATE Program:
A Commentary

by

Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
Palo Alto, California
(The Journal of Parapsychology. 60. 3-23. March 1996)

Abstract

As a result of a Congressionally Directed Activity, the Central Intelligence Agency conducted an evaluation of a 24-year, government-sponsored program to investigate ESP and its potential use within the Intelligence Community. The American Institutes for Research was contracted to conduct the review of both research and operations. Their 29 September 1995 final report was released to the public 28 November 1995.

As a result of AIR’s assessment, the CIA concluded that a statistically significant effect had been demonstrated in the laboratory, but that there was no case in which ESP had provided data that had ever been used to guide intelligence operations. This paper is a critical review of AIR’s methodology and conclusions. It will be shown that there is compelling evidence that the CIA set the outcome with regard to intelligence usage before the evaluation had begun.

This was accomplished by limiting the research and operations data sets to exclude positive findings, by purposefully not interviewing historically significant participants, by ignoring previous DOD extensive program reviews, and by using the questionable National Research Council’s investigation of parapsychology as the starting point for their review. While there may have been political and administrative justification for the CIA not to accept the government’s in-house program for the operational use of anomalous cognition, this appeared to drive the outcome of the evaluation.

As a result, they have come to the wrong conclusion with regard to the use of anomalous cognition in intelligence operations and significantly underestimated the robustness of the basic phenomenon.

Executive Summary

As part of the fiscal year 1995 defense appropriations bill, responsibility for the government-sponsored investigation and use of ESP* was transferred to the Central Intelligence Agency. In a Congressionally Directed Action, the CIA was instructed to conduct a retrospective review of the 24-year program, now known as STAR GATE, that resided primarily within the Intelligence Community. The analysis was to include the research that was conducted since 1972 at SRI International and later at Science Applications International Corporation.

In addition, the CIA was to include an assessment of the intelligence-gathering utility of anomalous cognition (AC), and the program history was to be declassified (CIA Public Affairs Office, 1995). Initiated in June 1995, the evaluation was to be completed by 30 September 1995.

The CIA contracted with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to manage the review. They, in turn, formed a “blue-ribbon” panel that included psychologist Professor Ray Hyman from the University of Oregon and statistician Professor Jessica Utts from the University of California at Davis. AIR contributed Michael Mumford, Ph.D. and Andrew Rose, Ph.D. to the panel to provide unbiased assessment on methodological issues. The President of AIR, David Goslin, Ph.D., served as coordinator of the evaluation effort.

I was asked by CIA to provide administrative support, technical documents, and briefings on an as-needed basis for the review. This work was supported by a small contract to Science Applications International Corporation.

The CIA-sponsored AIR investigation concluded that a statistically significant laboratory effect has been demonstrated but more replications were needed. In no case had the anomalous cognition information ever been used to guide intelligence operations (Mumford, Rose, and Goslin, 1995).

I question the validity of their and the CIA’s conclusions because they:

  • Limited the data sets in the analysis. As a way of officially ignoring anomalous cognition’s positive contributions to intelligence, only a small fraction of the operational remote viewing database was examined. That was the final data collected just before the unit closed, a time widely known as problematic. In their laboratory evaluations, they restricted the investigation to only the government-sponsored research and then insisted on the need for more outside replications. In doing so, they ignored the conclusions of one of their own investigators who showed that the government-sponsored research had been already been conceptually replicated.
  • Failed to contact significant program participants. Because of the complexity of the 24-year program, it is impossible to conduct an in-depth and accurate evaluation without significant contact with the program’s many major participants. The review focused on the project’s reports, but they were written to satisfy specific contract requirements and were not designed individually or in total to serve as a program justification; thus, these documents provide a substantially incomplete picture of the program.

In addition to questioning the validity of CIA/AIR’s conclusions, I find such serious problems with their evaluation methodology that I have become reluctantly convinced that their conclusions were set before their investigation began. The investigators failed to:

  • Apply consistent criteria for acceptance or rejection of anomalous cognition. The investigators were troubled by possible non-AC alternative explanations for the statistically significant laboratory results, yet ignored similar alternatives for the failed operations. For example, well-known psychological effects such as bad morale, failed expectations, and a lack of a supportive environment, were not discussed as potential alternatives for the failed operations. In their positive forms, all of these psychological effects are critical for excellence in any human activity.
  • Avail themselves of the previous exhaustive reviews conducted by various organizations within the DOD, all but one of which was positive. Since the CIA was allowed only four months to complete the evaluation, it is surprising that they chose not to use this resource.
  • Reject a discredited evaluation of parapsychology conducted by the National Research Council (NRC). They knew that the NRC investigators were not cleared for access to the vast majority of SRI’s research, yet the AIR investigation relied heavily on the NRC’s review to question the SRI research results prior to 1988.
  • Use neutral government scientific evaluation resources such as the Military Services’ or the CIA’s Scientific Advisory Boards. Instead they commissioned external investigators with previously published conclusions about parapsychology. The CIA could then justify whatever conclusion they wished, because it would be consistent, by definition, with at least one of their external reviewers.
  • To recognize a potential significant conflict of interest for Dr. David Goslin, president of AIR and a report co-author. He had administrative responsibility for the discredited NRC investigation of parapsychology.

Finally, since the political situation and the status of the program had significantly deteriorated technically and administratively, I speculate that this contributed to the underlying reason why the CIA did not want the program even before the evaluation began.

In this paper, I will expand upon these topics to demonstrate clearly that the outcome and conclusions drawn by AIR and subsequently the CIA were set before the investigation began, and that methodological and administrative choices were made to assure that the results of the investigation would support the CIA’s pre-determined perspective. In addition, I will document that they have come to the wrong conclusion with regard to the use of anomalous cognition in intelligence operations and greatly underestimated the robustness of the phenomenon.

Critique of the CIA/AIR Conclusions

Limited Database for the Evaluation of Research and Operations

The program evaluation was set from the beginning to only include government-sponsored research. If the evaluation was confined to the assessment of the scientific quality of the research, then perhaps this is not a bad idea, given that the Congress was trying to determine whether there was merit to continue. Upon closer inspection, however, even in this case, limiting the scope of the evaluation to exclude replications is scientifically invalid. The evidence for or against a statistically-based phenomenon cannot rest on the evidence provided by a few investigators in two laboratories (i.e., SRI and SAIC). Rather, science demands that the evidence rest in replications. Yet, the reviewers were requested not to look outside the STAR GATE project.

In the CIA’s briefing to Congress, they list three points as attributed to the AIR investigation (May, 1995g) and I quote:

  • “the data do not establish that a paranormal phenomenon is involved, nature of source not identified”
  • “the data have not been replicated independently”
  • “the boundary constraints critical to obtaining statistically significant experimental results are not practical in real world of intelligence collection.”

No statistically based phenomena can be established without replication, yet the investigators were instructed not to look for any. (Utts, ignored this instruction and clearly showed that a conceptual replication has been well established in the literature and that significant statistical consistencies existed between the SRI and SAIC data sets.) Since the investigators were restricted at the outset, the top two bullets above are true by construction-not by analysis.

A casual scan of my collection of technical journals found four independent replications of remote viewing (Dunne and Bisaha, 1979; Schlitz and Gruber, 1980; Schlitz and Haight, 1984; and Targ et al., 1995). Rather than more replications as called for by AIR and Hyman, what is needed is a meta-analysis of all the AC studies to date and more attention on potential mechanisms.

Perhaps I should rest my case here. The CIA/AIR conclusions appeared to be designed into the investigation. Their final bullet above is questionable on its face value, because it is true by the nature of intelligence, not because of a valid criticism of the program’s operational AC. The only valid measure of intelligence utility for anomalous cognition is a top-level out-come measure, not a statistical analysis. In short, do end-users come back for more? Do any end-users have cases they can point to that helped solve an intelligence problem? The CIA and AIR say no, but as I will show below, that conclusion was also arrived ate by construction rather than by analysis.

I first learned of the CIA/AIR’s plan for the evaluation of the intelligence value of anomalous cognition from Mumford during the July meeting of the “blue-ribbon” panel at which I was invited to present material and answer questions. At that date, Mumford claimed that they were only going to look back three years from the end of the 24-year program. I told him that I was convinced that this would not provide an honest picture of the utility of AC. I informed the panel that I could easily predict the outcome based on my knowledge of the morale of the government’s viewers, the substandard management by Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officials, the tasking (i.e., what data they were after) and the inappropriate collection protocols.

Mumford attempted to justify his decision by saying he did not want to rely on memory and hearsay. He would not have to, because there was an extensive written history including testimonials to official organizations within the Intelligence Community. Mumford reiterated that he was sticking to his plan, regardless.

I objected to this decision to ignore existing data. I called the individual at CIA who had been assigned to manage the review, hereafter called the Point of Contact or POC, and insisted that some of the officials I had previously named had to be contacted. I learned later that the names and phone numbers of at least six individuals had been given to the POC. These end-users were both on active duty and retired who have already been on written record as attesting to the value of AC-derived intelligence data in solving specific problems.

After the AIR report had been given to Congress, but before it was released to the public and before I had seen it, I called many of the individuals on the list. Most were not contacted and those that were, told the CIA representative the case specifics and value of their individual circumstances. Some of the positive findings occurred before the final year but within the last three years of the project.

Finally, even a cursory investigation of the written record of intelligence operations would have revealed substantial evidence of the operational utility of anomalous cognition. Minimally, there exists enough data to claim prima facie utility with regard to the method, and selected cases are beyond doubt as to AC’s specific utility.

Joseph McMoneagle, one of the original government viewers beginning in 1978 and a consultant to the SRI/SAIC and Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, in 1984 was granted a Legion of Merit award for excellence in intelligence service. The Legion of Merit is rarely awarded for other than 20 or 30 years service, yet McMoneagle received his on the following basis. I quote, with permission, from McMoneagle’s citation:

“…He [McMoneagle] served most recently as a Special Project Intelligence Officer for SSPD, SSD, and 902d MI Group, as one of the original planners and movers of a unique intelligence project that is revolutionizing the intelligence community. While with SSPD, he used his talents and expertise in the execution of more than 200 missions, addressing over 150 essential elements of information [EEI]. These EEI contained critical intelligence reported at the highest echelons of our military and government, including such national level agencies as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, DIA, NSA, CIA, DEA, and the Secret Service, producing crucial and vital intelligence unavailable from any other source…”

How is it that the CIA and AIR could not find compelling evidence for the operational utility of anomalous cognition? They clearly chose not to look.

Important Program Participants: Never Contacted

From 1985 through 1990, the research project at SRI International enjoyed substantial, on-going, and written scientific oversight of the major portion of the AC database at SRI. Twelve individuals, who are world-renowned in their individual disciplines, were chosen by the client and other government officials to serve on our Scientific Oversight Committee. In addition, they were selected on the basis of the scientific reputations and on the basis of their skepticism. “Believers” were not allowed on the committee. The SOC’s responsibilities were four-fold:

  • Evaluate our written protocols prior to conducting any experiments. The protocol that was actually used for each investigation was the convergence of round-robin exchange with the SOC.
  • Exercise un-announced drop-in privileges to observe experiments in progress. Approximately one half of the SOC availed themselves of this opportunity.
  • Review the then classified final research reports as if they were technical journal submissions in their individual disciplines. The disciplines included physics, philosophy, psychology, electrical engineering, statistics, and astronomy. Their reviews were in writing and appended, un-edited, to our each final report.
  • Suggest approaches for research in the next year of the 5-year contract.

During the SAIC time, the SOC was limited to only five members but they had the same charter. Three of the five came from the SOC at SRI. At SAIC we established two additional oversight committees. An Institutional Review Board (i.e., human use committee) was established with nine members who were health and medical professionals and are renowned in their disciplines as well.

The list included one Nobel laureate as did SAIC’s Scientific Oversight Committee. Besides assuring the protection of our human subjects, they also served as a less formal scientific oversight committee.

The third oversight committee at SAIC was for policy. The three members of this committee came from formerly very senior positions in the DOD and their job was to assure that we were meeting our obligations to the DOD and supporting its mission.

Of these 17 individuals who had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of this project, scientifically, methodologically, and administratively only one was contacted by CIA. It was that single individual who provided the names of satisfied end-users I discussed above.

The SOC’s comments were available to the AIR reviewers in written form, and many of the committee members lived on the east coast and even a few lived in Washington. The CIA/AIR investigators could have easily contacted them. They didn’t.

The failure to contact significant program participants does not end with these committees. I provided the POC with the names and phone numbers of numerous other pertinent individuals. The list included the previous project director for STAR GATE who had retired less than a year before the review and the Commander for a still-classified client who initiated a single contract that accounted for a significant fraction of all the funding for the project over the 24 years.

In addition, I gave the POC the names of a number of the original government viewers. In short, with interviews of mostly local people the CIA could have gained significant insight to the scientific, operational, managerial, and political aspects of the STAR GATE project. They chose to ignore these resources.

Methodological Problems

Inconsistent Criteria

One of AIR’s significant methodological flaws is important with regard to the assessment of operations. In the Section on the Evaluation Plan in the report, Mumford et al. (Page 2-1, 1995) correctly required of the laboratory investigations “…unambiguous [emphasis added] evidence for the existence of the phenomenon… .” Following this lead, Hyman hypothesized a number of alternative explanations for the observed statistical significance other than the anomalous cognitive one, although he admits he couldn’t find any obvious flaws in the methodology (Mumford et al., 1995, Page 3-75).

For example, he is troubled that during the SAIC research, a single judge was used to conduct all the laboratory evaluations. Although Hyman does not propose how this might effect the result, he is correct in proposing the hypothesis that it might somehow affect the outcome. (Hyman lists other alternatives as well, but this one illustrates the point.) As it turns out, Utts finds statistical homogeneity (i.e., meaningful consistency) among the results from SRI, SAIC, and replications elsewhere when that single judge was not involved. Thus, this hypothesis must be rejected. This same consistency also rejects the other alternatives Hyman proposes, as well.

Yet, AIR fails to apply the same “unambiguous” criteria to their evaluation of the efficacy of AC in intelligence operations. In this case, why operations may have failed. In particular, in their discussion in the Section on Evaluating the Utility of Remote Viewing in Intelligence Operations they list a number of “boundary conditions” that might affect anomalous cognition in operations. These include a number of physical and methodological issues such as feedback and whether a sender or distance to the target might be factors.

They did not discuss or propose any psychological issues that may have been the deciding factors as to why the operations failed in their limited sample. For example, it is well-known that human performance of any kind and most certainly AC-performance is profoundly affected by the morale, the expectations of the participants, and the emotional environment in which the performance is expected (e.g., home-team effect in sports). But none of these potentially critical factors was discussed in the context of reaching the unambiguous conclusion that AC was useless in operations.

I had discussed these points in my meeting with the blue-ribbon panel in July, 1995. In particular, having spent considerable time with the government remote viewing unit, I was knowledgeable about what psychologists call “set and setting.”

That is, I saw first hand and reported to the panel that during the last two years (i.e., the time of the operational evaluation) the emotional environment had deteriorated to the point that the viewers wanted to leave the unit, and some of the staff had already left in disgust (May, 1995i). The morale was so low that doing excellent remote viewing, or practically anything else, would be out of the question. The AIR investigators interviewed the government remote viewers (Mumford et al., 1995, Page 4-9) and learned of these problems, first hand (May, 1995j).

These critically important factors were completely left out of the discussion in the report and no alternate hypotheses were suggested to question their “unambiguously negative conclusion about the use of AC in intelligence operations.

Previous Program Reviews

Even before I was officially under contract with CIA, I gave the POC either copies of, or pointers to, a number of classified program reviews that had been conducted in the past.*

One important aspect of the program was its on-going and rigorous review and technical oversight. Everyone involved (i.e., the government sponsors, SRI, and SAIC) were correctly concerned that the research should be as rigorous as possible and that the program could be justified within the Intelligence Community and DOD. These reviews were extensive and were conducted by General military officers, senior members of the Intelligence Community, respected scientists from many disciplines, and end-users of the AC intelligence product.

These remain classified, and with one exception, were positive with regard to the existence of AC and its successful contributions to intelligence. Even the negative one only wanted to stop the research but continue the operations! The final such review was conducted in 1987.

In addition to the written reviews, from 1985 through 1990 the program enjoyed the continued oversight of a high-ranking military officer from the still-classified sponsor and a GS-15 geneticist from DIA as permanent on-site observers at SRI.

The POC is a Ph.D. scientist and at the time seemed dedicated to the best job possible. He informed me, however, that the CIA intended to ignore the previous reviews and start fresh. Given that the review had to be in Congress in four months, I could not conceive how it could be effective and accurate and ignore the substantial amount of previous oversight. After all, a complete analysis could, and should have, included a review of the previous classified DOD assessments.

A Thread of Bias, Potential Conflict of Interest, and Suppression of Data.

In the early days of the project, Targ and Puthoff (1974a) reported on a series of experiments they conducted at SRI with Mr. Uri Geller, an Israeli magician/psychic. George Lawrence from the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) accompanied by two consultants, Ray Hyman and Robert Van de Castle, came to SRI requesting an opportunity to see an experiment in progress with Geller. Puthoff and Targ correctly denied access to the ARPA representatives because of technical and administrative protocol issues.

After all, with such controversy swirling about Geller, it is easy to become quite paranoid about who is trying to trick whom. The safest and the most scientifically sound course is not to allow anyone except the direct research team to witness formal experiments regardless of credentials (Targ and Puthoff, 1977 and May, 1996).

Yet, as part of their cover story, Time magazine (Jaroff, 1974) quoted Ray Hyman’s claim that the SRI tests were carried out with “incredible sloppiness.” The irony is that the tests that Hyman and Lawrence witnessed at SRI were indeed conducted with “incredible sloppiness,” but the experiments they witnessed were of their own making and had nothing at all to do with protocols of those experiments to which they had been denied access (Targ and Puthoff, 1974b and May, 1996).

It is clear that Lawrence and Hyman had strongly held positions and were willing to report their experiences at SRI inaccurately. Thus we see the first evidence of a negative bias on the part of Lawrence and Hyman.

In 1984, their biases were again demonstrated. The Army Research Institute (ARI) commissioned the American Academy of Sciences to investigate the potential of certain techniques that propose to enhance human performance (Druckman and Swets, 1988).

Although performance enhancement has never been the claim of research parapsychology, the National Research Council included parapsychology as one of the topics to be studied.

The same George Lawrence formerly from ARPA was ARI’s project monitor, and he asked that Ray Hyman be commissioned to head the investigation into parapsychological phenomena. David Goslin, Executive Director of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education for the National Research Council, served as overall project director and agreed to the request.

On parapsychology, the NRC study concluded (Druckman and Swets, 1988):

“The committee finds no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena. It therefore concluded that there is no reason for direct involvement by the Army at this time.

We do recommend, however, that research in certain areas be monitored, including work by the Soviets and the best work in the United States. The latter include that being done at Princeton University by Robert Jahn; at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn by Charles Honorton, now in Princeton; at San Antonio by Helmut Schmidt; and at the Stanford Research Institute by Edward (sic) May. Monitoring could be enhanced by site visits and by expert advice from both proponents and skeptics. The research areas included would be psychokinesis with random even generators and Ganzfeld effects.”

By the time the NRC began their investigation, I was the project director at SRI International. Our program was highly classified at that time and special access was required before any aspect of the project could be discussed even with individuals with appropriate security clearences.* Thus, neither the in-house DIA classified program nor the NRC investigators, and particular Ray Hyman, had access to over 80% of all the remote viewings conducted during the SRI years.

None of the research reports from this contract were kept with the DIA remote viewing group. So even though Hyman had access to the this group, he was denied access to and probably even unaware of the SRI data of that time period.

I was not even allowed to meet with Hyman in our laboratory or office space; he and I met in a separate building at SRI that was not associated with project. Our discussions were confined to our published account of a careful random number generator experiment that we had conducted in 1979.

In the overall summary shown above, remote viewing was not even mentioned although an analysis of the early studies at SRI and later studies at Princeton are contained in the body of the NRC report. With regard to their conclusion on remote viewing: “…the literature on remote viewing has managed to produce only one possibly successful experiment that is not seriously flawed in its methodology-and that one experiment provides only marginal evidence for the existence of ESP.”

The parapsychology section of the NRC study was a mockery of good science and serves as an excellent model for a pseudo-scientific investigation. The methodology for the NRC investigation and their conclusions were soundly criticized and shown to be without scientific merit (Palmer, Honorton, and Utts, 1989). The four major points drawn by Palmer et al. are summarized:

  • “The NRC claimed they could find no evidence for parapsychological phenomena during the last 130 years, yet they examined only 10% of the systematic scientific effort in parapsychology.”
  • “The two principal evaluators of parapsychological research, Ray Hyman and James Alcock, were publicly committed to a negative position on parapsychology at the time the NRC research Committee was formed. [Note added by May: In addition, the phrase “..the total accumulation of 130 year’s worth of psychical investigations has not produced any consistent evidence for parnormality…” can be found in Hyman (1986) and the NRC conclusion (1988), and thus demonstrates his stated bias before the NRC investigation was complete.]”
  • “The Committee’s method of assessing parapsychology violates its own stated guidelines for research evaluation, which specify the identification and assessment of plausible alternatives. With regard to the better parapsychological experiments, the Committee admits, “We do not have a smoking gun, nor have we demonstrated a plausible alternative” (Druckman and Swets, 1988, p. 200).”
  • “The report selectively omits important findings favorable to parapsychology contained in one of the background papers commissioned for the Committee, while liberally citing from other papers supportive of the Committee’s [negative] position. The principal author of the favorable paper, an eminent Harvard psychologist, was actually asked by the Chair of the NRC Committee to withdraw his favorable conclusions.”

This last point is particularly troublesome and reveals the political nature of what should have been a carefully conducted scholarly investigation that usually characterizes the National Research Council. Violating one of the basic tenets of science to report all findings, the NRC Committee asked Professor Robert Rosenthal to:

“…omit the section of our paper evaluating the Ganzfeld research domains. I refused to do so but was so shocked and disappointed by this request that I discussed this request with a number of colleagues in the Harvard departments of Psychology and of Statistics. Without exception they were as shocked as I was.

In the end, censorship did not occur, and Monica Harris’ and my paper is available in its entirety in a kind of preprint format from the National Academy Press.*

Rosenthal’s and Harris’ commissioned paper listed the Ganzfeld methodological quality to be superior to the typical quality of the other four areas they considered (Rosenthal, 1990).

In addition to the significant methodological flaws and the attempt to suppress positive findings, the NRC study was essentially contradicted in it’s major conclusion by a one-day workshop hosted by the Office of Technology Assessment, the research arm of the US Congress (Office of Technology Assessment, 1989). The OTA did not completely exonerate the field of research parapsychology; there is no scientific endeavor that cannot be improved. The OTA did, however, clearly demonstrate that the research cannot simply be dismissed-a view directly opposite to the NRC’s conclusion.

In continuing the development of a potential conflict of interest, I point out once again that David Goslin had administrative responsibility for this seriously flawed NRC investigation.

When the CIA was searching for someone to conduct their technical review of the STAR GATE program, they were turned down by the National Research Council in part because of the time constraint and in part because of the substantial negative publicity that resulted from their previous report on parapsychology (May, 1995e). Instead, AIR was commissioned to conduct the review. AIR’s president is David Goslin.

Let me now summarize the thread of bias and potential conflict of interest. Ray Hyman and George Lawrence were denied access to SRI experiments with Uri Geller in 1974. Ray Hyman has a long history of a negative bias with regard to parapsychology. In 1985, George Lawrence commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to investigate parapsychology and picked Hyman to direct the effort. In 1986, David Goslin presided over a methodologically flawed review. In 1995, David Goslin assumed responsibility for the CIA-sponsored investigation of the STAR GATE program.

It is not a surprising that the NRC study is liberally quoted in the AIR report because it supports the possibly predisposed views of CIA/AIR, albeit from a flawed investigation. Since Professor Jessica Utts was one of the co-authors of the formal response to the NRC study, I questioned her (May, 1995f):

“Since you were a contributing author to the reply [to the NRC investigation] and since the reply soundly criticized the NRC’s review methodology, I was surprised to see that you did not mention the NRC study or the PA’s [Parapsychological Association] reply in your section of the AIR’s report. Considering the weight that the AIR investigators placed on the NRC study, I feel it was a substantial oversight for you not have added your first-hand criticism of the NRC report as part of your remarks.”

So that I make no errors in interpretation, I print, with permission, her complete reply (19 December 1995):

“This is in response to your question about why I did not mention the National Research Council’s 1988 evaluation of parapsychology in my report to AIR. The answer is that I was explicitly asked by AIR staff NOT to mention the NRC report in my review! This is very troubling to me for a number of reasons.

First, you are correct in stating that I was aware that the NRC committee was not shown much of the relevant remote viewing data when they did their review, and that they did not in fact even know the data existed. As you also noted, I co-authored a critical review of the NRC report shortly after it was published, illustrating a number of weaknesses with it.

What you may not know is that in addition to those problems, the statistical method the NRC committee relied on for its findings (called “vote-counting”) has been completely discredited, and is known to produce misleading results. I raised this point at the July meeting Ray Hyman and I attended with the AIR staff at their Palo Alto office, and it was substantiated by Stanford Statistics Professor Lincoln Moses, who had been asked by the AIR staff to attend the meeting to comment on that and related statistical issues. (Had the NRC committee included a statistician, that serious flaw, and the subsequent misleading results, may have been avoided. I am sorry to say that even at our meeting in Palo Alto, Ray did not seem to understand the problem, and he was the principal “statistician” for the NRC report.)

When I was explicitly asked by AIR staff NOT to mention the NRC report in my review, I assumed they had realized the problems with it, and, especially given the involvement of the AIR President with the NRC Committee, were happy to let it fade into oblivion.

Given that background, I was quite disappointed to see that AIR made liberal use of the NRC report in their conclusions. Had I known they were going to do that, I certainly would have discussed the multiple problems with it in my report. By not mentioning it, an uninformed reader may assume that I support it, which I certainly do not.

I would also like to explain another omission in my report that occurred for much the same reason. Despite the claims Ray Hyman is making in the media, we were shown very little of the “operational” remote viewing work. One of the few documents we were shown was a list of “[the former DIA project officer’s] best” remote viewing successes.

Since the list provided almost no detail, you may recall that I asked you for names and numbers of individuals I could contact to get more information about those purported operational successes. In a memo dated August 1, 1995, you provided me with phone numbers for [ a former DIA project officer, a former senior DIA official, a military General who had program responsibility], and Joseph McMoneagle. You sent a copy of the memo to the AIR staff.

Shortly after you sent me that memo, I was contacted by the AIR staff and told that I was NOT to contact any of those individuals. Thus, I was not able to gain any details about the operational remote viewing work. I thought you should know that, in case you were wondering why I requested that information and then did not use it.

Again, I am clueless as to why Ray Hyman is making claims in the media that we had access to the operational work for our review. I do not think he was given access to any information not shown to me. I don’t know how he can substantiate the claims he’s making about remote viewing being useless for intelligence. He may be correct, but he has very little data on which to base that conclusion.”

While a case can be made that Professor Utts should not be contacting people with regard to operations because she did not possess a clearance at the time, the individuals I named are professionals and would not disclose classified information to an uncleared person. Regardless, the AIR investigators cannot be excused from the attempt to suppress intellectual findings by, or to limit the research of, a noted academic that may be germane to the stated goals of the investigation.

The NRC study was discredited in print and I had discussed that issues in detail with AIR’s blue ribbon panel.

Biased Investigators on the AIR’s “Blue-Ribbon” Panel

Since our research program had been reviewed by various Science Advisory Boards including DIA’s, it seemed prudent and natural that the CIA should ask their own Board or one of many that reside in the Washington area to conduct the program’s technical evaluation. I even provided names and phone numbers of individuals who I know on various boards to expedite the contact.

Instead, Utts and Hyman were chosen to act as the expert reviewers. At first glance, this seems like a reasonable approach given that no learning curve would be required. I told the POC that I thought this was not a good plan and that I could easily predict their conclusions based on their previous writing. See Hyman (1986) and Utts (1991) as samples. I reiterated that an in-place Science Advisory Board would better serve that evaluation.

What better way to conclude whatever you wish than to build into the evaluation protocol a priori stated scholarly views that are known to span the opinion space. This guarantees that the concluding remarks by CIA will, by definition, be consistent with some evaluator on the team. That is exactly what happened. In the CIA’s presentation to Congress, eight separate bulleted points are allotted to Hyman’s conclusion while only four are allotted to Utts’ and none are given to Utts’ important rebuttal to Hyman (May, 1995g).

Good Advice Ignored

Since most of the work under review occurred under my watch as the contractor program director, I could obviously not be involved in the analysis directly, but as part of my contract responsibility, I was asked to advise the review process. In a 4-page document (May, 1995a), I indicated in words and figures how a review might proceed. The major point was that acceptance criteria for operations and research should be set prior to the review so that they could be used to judge the validity of the program in an unbiased way.

(Arguably, one could say that I had a vested interest in the outcome and my views should be ignored; however, I only provided suggestions from a top-down perspective and did not suggest any details that could be considered self-serving. It was beneficial to the program and to me personally to have the most honest and rigorous review possible, and I was completely confident that such a review could only be positive.)

The criteria for the research could easily be adopted from the established and accepted scientific rules for evidence. Quoting from my memorandum (May, 1995a):

“The existence of anomalous mental phenomena cannot be statistically determined from the results of a single laboratory. The requirements for replication of a statistical phenomenon and the methods for the analysis of cross-laboratory results are well developed.”

Not only was this advice ignored, it was ignored by fiat. The reviewers were instructed to only look at research results from SRI and SAIC. Fortunately for scientific credibility, Professor Utts ignored this statistically invalid directive. Such action by CIA with regard to their review can only add to the evidence that they were either only interested in a negative outcome or statistically naive.

Determining the efficacy of operations was much more difficult. Would one successful operation be sufficient justification to continue the program, or would all the operations have to be useful? What constitutes a successful operation? A one percent hit rate might be considered miraculous by one customer, but a 50% hit rate might be useless to another. I made no attempt to suggest what that judgment criteria should be; I only urged that it be set in advance. It wasn’t.

It was not done as a matter of official policy or even informally as a guideline. As it turned out, the POC later informed me that only a single case would be sufficient as far as he was concerned, but he was careful to say that the decision was being made at “a much higher pay grade then his.” I learned later that they were only going to examine the last set of AC operations from the 24-year program. I and they knew that these cases were not representative of the program at large. This point will be expanded below.

Early in the review, I was request to provide a list of my 10-best examples of research that supported the existence of anomalous cognition. In a memorandum (May, 1995b), I complained about that request. In part, I quote:

“Since the complete document set will be available to AIR, I recommend the following approach:

  • For the period at SRI from 1973 to 1989 (this also covers the pre NRC report date) use the [in-house] meta-analysis as a guideline for the assessment with spot checks to the primary documents to validate the SRI evaluation.
  • Use all the work conducted under the SAIC program from 1991 through 1994 as the simplified test set of documents. I think that includes 4 final reports and perhaps 10 major projects within that set.
  • Conduct the final evaluation from both sources of data. (One thing that could be done is to use the results of the meta-analysis of the SRI data to predict what might happen during the SAIC research. The meta-analysis could be predictive only if there were a genuine phenomenon. In my view, this would add to the overall analysis.)

This approach avoids the file draw problem [i.e., not publishing studies that fail to meet statistical significance] altogether and includes most of the documents I would count as my 10 anyway. I can only think of a few other studies that I might want to include and all of them have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.”

I responded in part again to the same request (May, 1995c):

Although the request seems straight forward at the outset, to establish the existence of Remote Viewing on the basis of a subset of the total data set does not conform to the accepted practice for meta-analysis as set forth in Rosenthal (1991) and Hedges and Olkin (1985).

I went on to comply to the request in such a way that the complete record would be examined to avoid any accusation of a so-called “file-drawer” problem by including in my list a detailed in-house meta-analysis covering the period from 1973 to 1989 (May, Utts, Trask, Luke, Frivold, and Humphrey, 1989). This analysis was conducted as part of contractual requirement to a still-classified sponsor.

AIR ignored the CIA directive by including the National Research Council’s review of parapsychology as a support for their conclusions about research. Knowing full well that the NRC investigators did not have access to any SRI reports from 1985 onward (May, 1995d), they featured it prominently in their final report.

Little Contact with the Program’s Principal Investigator

I would like to emphasize my role, or lack of it, in the CIA/AIR evaluation of the STAR GATE program. As I said before, it was inappropriate for me to be involved in the actual assessment; however, it is especially important to learn from the critical details that never make it into official reports. To illustrate my point, of all the “blue-ribbon” panelists, Professor Utts was the most familiar with the project; she had served as a visiting scientist for a year during the SRI era. Even with her intimate knowledge she called me at least 12 times to seek clarification on specific points in the documents she was reading. Professor Hyman never called and the AIR team not only did not call but refused to return my multi-faceted communication attempts. As a result of AIR negligence, their report contains numerous errors of fact and errors of assumptions.

I was the director of the government-sponsored investigation of anomalous mental phenomena for 10 of the 24-year history. I presided over 70% of the total contractor budget, 85% of the program’s data collection, and had intimate knowledge of and responsibility for the project. For AIR to not use this resource is scientifically indefensible.

As the review process was coming to an end, I formally sought the opportunity to provide a written commentary to the AIR report to be included with the blue-ribbon panel’s reports (May, 1995h). Given that Utts and Hyman were given space to comment on each others work,* and since most of the science that was being reviewed was work conducted under my direction, it seemed only natural to include my comments. That request and a similar one to AIR was ignored.

Political Reason Why CIA may not have Wanted the Program

Under the reluctant auspices of the DIA, the program transitioned from SRI to Science Applications International Corporation in 1991. We recognized shortly thereafter that DIA did not welcome the responsibility as the contracting agency. The reason DIA management was not anxious to have the program was complex and not associated with the technical aspects. Some of the DIA management had previous negative experiences with senior military officers who had become “believers,” oversold the program’s capability, and were known as “loose cannons” in the community.

This reluctance manifested in two important ways. First of all, the initial financial support for the program in 1991 came directly as part of the supplemental Defense Appropriations bill and was considered by Congress as “seed” money. DIA was expected to request follow-on support as part of the overall DIA annual budget requests. Those requests never happened; all program support through 1995 came from the Appropriations bills.

One consequence was, that a member of the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee became increasingly disappointed with the DIA and began to micro-manage the program with disastrous results. A second consequence was that an attempt was made in 1993 to transfer the program to CIA. No willing recipient could be found there to accept the program. Even then the CIA did not want program responsibility.

Secondly, the negative attitude from senior DIA management filtered down the chain of command. For example, the final project officer who had direct responsibility for the program before it closed had little knowledge of the program; no knowledge of its substantial history; no technical background to manage such a project; ignored the research results; and created a crushing atmosphere with his management style. The morale was so bad that viewers and officials within the government’s remote viewing unit repeatedly asked me to intervene. This placed me in a very difficult position as a contractor. I informed middle management at DIA of the problems with no result.

In short, the program was in shambles. The operations that were conducted during the last few years of the project, for the most part, were destined to and did fail. It was this program, including personnel, that was to be transferred to CIA by 1 July 1995. In my professional opinion, which I shared with the POC, the program, as it was configured, would not produce successful AC intelligence operations.

So, CIA had strong and valid reasons not to want the program. The Agency was soundly criticized in the press for mishandling the Ames case and other excesses, so they did not need another controversy. In my opinion, the last thing they would want would be to inherit a Congressionally micro-managed program in severe internal distress no matter what its content or potential might be. Yet, by law they had to comply with the Congressional Directed Action and conduct the review. No wonder that it was probably done in such a way to assure a negative outcome with regard to operations.

Conclusions

It is impossible for me to prove whether or not the CIA determined the outcome of the investigation before it began. What is obvious, however, is that the evaluation domain of the research and particularly the operations were restricted to preclude positive findings.

The CIA did not contact or ignored people who possessed critical knowledge of the program, including some end-users of the intelligence data. Investigators were chosen who either had previously published conclusions or who possessed a serious potential for a conflict of interest. With the exception of the significantly flawed National Research Council’s review, all the DOD previous evaluations of the research and intelligence applications were ignored.

I am forced to conclude that either the AIR investigators were not competent to conduct a proper review of such a complex program-a view to which I do not subscribe-or they knew exactly what they were doing; they wanted to demonstrate a lack of intelligence utility for anomalous cognition. They did so by construction rather than by careful analysis.

Let us grant for the moment that my supposition is true; the CIA wanted to kill the program. Why was such a detailed rebuttal necessary? After all, an agency should be able to express their wishes with regard to the acceptance of any program that the Congress might assign.

In fact, I see it as part of the various agency’s responsibility to inform Congress of what might, or might not, be possible. Rejecting the STAR GATE program on the basis of an incomplete and incorrect analysis not only creates a false legacy, it does not easily allow for other organizations in the public or private sector to assume responsibility for a new version of the program.

Aside from setting the record straight, I felt obligated to show that as the result of their flawed methodology, the CIA/AIR greatly underestimated the statistical robustness of the research results and significantly undervalued the potential for anomalous cognition in intelligence operations.

References

Druckman, D. and Swets, J A. Ed. (1988). Enhancing Human Performance. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 167-208.

Dunne, B. J. and Bisaha, J. P. (1979). Precognitive Remote Viewing in the Chicago Area: A replication of the Stanford Experiment. Journal of Parapsychology. 43, No. 1. 1-16.

Hedges, L. V. and Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press, Inc. Harcourt Brace Javanovich. New York, NY.

Hyman, R. (1986). Parapsychological Research: A Tutorial Review and Critical Appraisal. Invited Paper. Proceedings of the IEEE. 74, No. 6. p. 825.

Jaroff, L. (1974). Boom Times on the Psychic Frontier. Time Magazine. 4 March. 56-72.

May, E. C., Utts, J. M., Trask, V. V, Luke, W. L. W., Frivold, T. J, and Humphrey, B. S. (1989). Review of the Psychoenergetic Research Conducted at SRI International (1973-1988). Final Report-Task 6.0.1, Project 1291. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

May, E. C. (1995a). Memorandum to POC. 6 June 1995.

May, E. C. (1995b). Memorandum to POC. 14 June 1995.

May, E. C. (1995c). Memorandum to POC. 19 June 1995.

May, E. C. (1995d). In May’s only meeting with the AIR “blue-ribbon” panel during which the lack of NRC access was discussed in detail. July 1995.

May, E. C. (1995e) Personal communication. The CIA point of contact.

May, E. C. (1995f). E-mail letter to Professor Utts, 17 December.

May, E. C. (1995g). Personal communication. US Senate Appropriations Committee Staff Member.

May, E. C. (1995h). Memorandum to POC. 14 August 1995.

May, E. C. (1995i). Personal communication. Foreign analyst for the unit, June, 1995.

May, E. C. (1995,j). Personal communication. A government remote viewer, August 1995.

May, E. C. (1996). Personal communication. Hal Puthoff.

Mumford, M. D., Rose, A. M., and Goslin, D. A. (1995). An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications. The American Institutes for Research report. September 29.

Office of Technology Assessment (1989). Report of a Workshop on Experimental Parapsychology. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 83, No. 4. 317-340.

Palmer, J. A., Honorton, C. and Utts, J. (1989). Reply to the National Research Council Study on Parapsychology. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research.. 83, No 1. 31-50.

Public Affairs Office, Central Intelligence Agency, 6 September 1995.

Rosenthal, R. (1990). Letter to the Editor. Psychological Science.. 1, No. 5. p.329.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-Analysis Procedures for Social Research.. Sage Publications, London, UK.

Schlitz, M. J. and Gruber, E. (1980). Transcontinental Remote Viewing. Journal of Parapsychology. 44, No. 4. 305-318.

Schlitz, M. J. and Haight. J. (1984). Remote Viewing Revisited: An Intrasubject Replication. Journal of Parapsychology. 48, No. 1. 39-50.

Targ, R. and Puthoff. H. E. (1974a). Information Transmission Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding. Nature. 252. 602-607.

Targ, R. and Puthoff, H. E. (1974b). Geller: experimenters reply. New Scientist. Letters. 7 November.

Targ, R. and Puthoff, H. E. (1977). Mind-Reach. Delacorte Press.

Targ, R, Katra, J, Brown, D., and Wiegand, W. (1995). Viewing the Future: A Pilot Study with an Error-Detecting Protocol. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 9, No. 3. 367-380.

Utts, J. (1991). Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology. Statistical Science. 6, No. 4. 363-403.

CSL is a part of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research (www.lfr.org).

For questions or comments about the web site, email the Webmaster.
All page layouts, text, graphics, photographs, and other inclusions in the CSL web site are Copyright © 1999-2001 by Cognitive Sciences Laboratories. All rights reserved. To request permissions, email CSL.

CSL Logo
http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/air_mayresponse.html
93070B7D-2AB9-9C18-AB40-1A028203032E
Y2:93070B7D-2AB9-9C18-AB40-1A028203032E

Nightmare Alley: The CIA Memo On Marilyn Monroe, JFK & UFOs

The Marilyn Monroe CIA Memo

This is a CIA document that appeared sometime in the early 1990s and has been (unwittingly) authenticated by the CIA itself, in that when Dr. Donald R. Burleson, author of UFOs and the Murder of Marilyn Monroe, filed his appeal of the CIA’s refusal to release transcripts of government wiretaps on Marilyn Monroe’s telephones, the appeal, which was based largely on the 3 August 1962 document in question, was accepted; ultimately no transcripts were released, but the acceptance-of-appeal process did demonstrate that the document is of authentic CIA provenance. The CIA could have denied the authenticity of the document and could thus have turned the appeal down, but they did not. It is contrary to Agency policy to accept any Freedom of Information Act request or appeal based on documents which the CIA does not acknowledge to be authentic; so, tacitly, they acknowledged that the document is genuine.

Not only does the Freedom of Information Act appeal-acceptance show that the “Marilyn memo” is of authentic CIA provenance– it also proves that the transcripts of wiretaps on Marilyn’s phones do exist. When an appeal is accepted and the requester is told that the matter has gone to the CIA’s Agency Release Panel, that means that a debate is under way as to whether to release existing documents, documents in possession of the Agency. It’s nonsense for the CIA to debate with itself over releasing nonexistent documents! The wiretap transcripts undeniably do exist, and given what is now known about Marilyn’s death, they must be extraordinarily revealing.

The 3 August 1962 CIA document, written only a day before Marilyn Monroe’s death, reveals that some high government officials were in a state of extreme anxiety over the fact that the Kennedy brothers (Jack and Bobby) had been imparting sensitive information to Marilyn, and that she was writing a lot of it down in her little red “diary of secrets.” Of special interest is the CIA document’s mention of the fact that one of the secrets everyone was afraid Marilyn might have written down had to do with “the visit by the President at a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting things from outer space.” The obvious inference is that JFK had told Marilyn about the Roswell UFO crash and the retrieval, in 1947, of debris and alien bodies. (John Kennedy was notorious for having a difficult time separating his hormonal life from his political career. It got him into trouble more than once. Marilyn wasn’t the first such instance, nor the last.)

When the Kennedys started distancing themselves from Marilyn, she grew angry and (mentioning it on the telephone, unfortunately) started planning to hold a news conference and “tell all.” According to the hypothesis set forth in Dr. Burleson’s book, Attorney General Robert Kennedy then became so fearful that “tell all” meant telling the big secret– the government retrieval and coverup of UFO crash debris and bodies– that he simply could not afford to let her live long enough to hold such a press conference as she was threatening to hold. Dr. Burleson’s book explores the likelihood that had Marilyn indeed told the world the “secret of secrets,” the President would have been indicted for disclosing highly classified information to an unauthorized recipient, an offense quite possibly to be construed as treason. The Kennedys couldn’t risk the potential political disaster, and Marilyn became the victim of their fears.

For easier reference, here is a transcription of the text of the CIA document:

Wiretape of telephone conversation between reporter Dorothy Kilgallen and her close friend, Howard Rothberg (A); from wiretap of telephone conversation of Marilyn Monroe and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (B). Appraisal of Content: [A portion redacted.]

1. Rothberg discussed the apparent comeback of subject with Kilgallen and the break up with the Kennedys. Rothberg told Kilgallen that she was attending Hollywood parties hosted by the “inner circle” among Hollywood’s elite and was becoming the talk of the town again. Rothberg indicated in so many words, that she had secrets to tell, no doubt arising from her trists [sic] with the President and the Attorney General. One such “secret” mentions the visit by the President at a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting things from outer space. Kilgallen replied that she knew what might be the source of visit. In the mid-fifties Kilgallen learned of secret effort by US and UK governments to identify the origins of crashed spacecraft and dead bodies, from a British government official. Kilgallen believed the story may have come from the New Mexico story in the late forties. Kilgallen said that if the story is true, it would cause terrible embarrassment for Jack and his plans to have NASA put men on the moon.

2. Subject repeatedly called the Attorney General and complained about the way she was being ignored by the President and his brother.

3. Subject threatened to hold a press conference and would tell all.

4. Subject made reference to “bases” in Cuba and knew of the President’s plan to kill Castro.

5. Subject made reference to her “diary of secrets” and what the newspapers would do with such disclosures.

[An indented block of text is redacted near the bottom of the page, and the document is signed JAMES ANGLETON, who at the time was the Chief of Counterintelligence for the CIA.]

The UFO connection becomes all the more compelling with the discovery, described in Burleson’s UFOs and the Murder of Marilyn Monroe, of an imprint to the left of the “TOP SECRET” stamp near the top of the document; the imprint, when Burleson enhanced it by computer imaging techniques, turns out to contain the name of Brigadier General George Shulgen, who was formerly the chief UFO investigation-coordinator for the U.S. Air Force. (The imprint also refers to General Schulgen’s Intelligence Collection Memorandum, a document known to have existed.) This imprint or “bleed-in,” however it came to be on a CIA document about Marilyn Monroe, makes a clear connection between her murder and the question of UFO secrecy, as someone, somewhere at some time, evidently thought it logical to archive the documents together. When all the evidence is considered, the case becomes very strong that government people murdered Marilyn because of what she knew about the UFO coverup.

 


To go to the SITE MAP, click here.
To go to the Marilyn Monroe page, click here.
To go to the “other books from Black Mesa Press” page, click here.
To go to the “author information” page, click here.

http://www.blackmesapress.com/page4.htm
93070B7D-2AB9-9C18-AB40-1A028203032E

 

Y2:93070B7D-2AB9-9C18-AB40-1A028203032E

JFK, Marilyn Monroe & UFOs: A Deadly Cocktail?

Exopolitics (The Greyada Treaty?)

Exopolitics: political implications of the extra-terrestrial presence
NEW
DVD of the Extraterrestrial Civilisations and World Peace Conference.
DVD Cover
Also recommended
Book Cover
Book information.

Eisenhower’s 1954 Meeting With Extraterrestrials:
The Fiftieth Anniversary of First Contact?

Research Study #8

Revised Febuary 12, 2004, first published January 28, 2004,

Exopolitics Article Archives

© Michael E. Salla, PhD


ABSTRACT

On the night and early hours of February 20-21, 1954, while on a ‘vacation’ to Palm Springs, California, President Dwight Eisenhower went missing and allegedly was taken to Edwards Air force base for a secret meeting. When he showed up the next morning at a church service in Los Angeles, reporters were told that he had to have emergency dental treatment the previous evening and had visited a local dentist. The dentist later appeared at a function that evening and presented as the ‘dentist’ who had treated Eisenhower. The missing night and morning has subsequently fueled rumors that Eisenhower was using the alleged dentist visit as a cover story for an extraordinary event. The event is possibly the most significant that any American President could have conducted: an alleged ‘First Contact’ meeting with extraterrestrials at Edwards Air Force base (previously Muroc Airfield), and the beginning of a series of meetings with different extraterrestrial races that led to a ‘treaty’ that was eventually signed. This astonishing First Contact event, if it occurred, will experience its 50th anniversary on February 20-21, 2004.
This paper explores the evidence that the First Contact meeting had occurred with extraterrestrials with a distinctive ‘Nordic’ appearance, the likelihood of an agreement having been spurned with this ‘Nordic race’, the start of a series of meetings that led to a treaty eventually being signed with a different extraterrestrial race dubbed the ‘Greys’, and the motivations of the different extraterrestrial races involved in these treaty discussions. The paper will further examine why these events were kept secret for so long, the significance of the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower’s meeting with extraterrestrials, and whether an official disclosure announcement is likely in the near future.

About the Author

Dr. Michael E. Salla has held academic appointments in the School of International Service, American University, Washington DC (1996-2001), and the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (1994-96). He taught as an adjunct faculty member at George Washington University, Washington DC., in 2002. He is currently researching methods of Transformational Peace as a Researcher in Residence in the Center for Global Peace (2001-2004) and directing the Center’s Peace Ambassador Program which uses transformational peace techniques for individual self-empowerment. He has a PhD in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an MA in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is the author of Exopolitics: Political Implications of the Extraterrestrial Presence (Dandelion Books, 2004); and The Hero’s Journey Toward a Second American Century (Greenwood Press, 2002) and co-editor/author of three other books, and authored more than seventy articles, chapters, and book reviews on peace, ethnic conflict and conflict resolution. He has conducted research and fieldwork in the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri Lanka. He has organized a number of international workshops involving mid to high level participants from these conflicts. He has an academic website at http://www.american.edu/salla/ and is the founder of the website: http://www.exopolitics.org


Eisenhower’s 1954 Meeting With Extraterrestrials: The Fiftieth Anniversary of First Contact?
 
 
 
Introduction [1]
On the night and early hours of February 20-21, 1954, while on a ‘vacation’ to Palm Springs, California, President Dwight Eisenhower went missing and allegedly was taken to Edwards Air force base for a secret meeting. When he showed up the next morning at a church service in Los Angeles, reporters were told that he had to have emergency dental treatment the previous evening and had visited a local dentist. The dentist later appeared at a function that evening and presented as the ‘dentist’ who had treated Eisenhower. The missing night and morning has subsequently fueled rumors that Eisenhower was using the alleged dentist visit as a cover story for an extraordinary event. The event is possibly the most significant that any American President could have conducted: an alleged ‘First Contact’ meeting with extraterrestrials at Edwards Air Force base (previously Muroc Airfield), and the beginning of a series of meetings with different extraterrestrial races that led to a ‘treaty’ that was eventually signed. This astonishing First Contact event, if it occurred, will experience its 50th anniversary on February 20-21, 2004.
This paper explores the evidence that the First Contact meeting had occurred with extraterrestrials with a distinctive ‘Nordic’ appearance, the likelihood of an agreement having been spurned with this ‘Nordic race’, the start of a series of meetings that led to a treaty eventually being signed with a different extraterrestrial race dubbed the ‘Greys’, and the motivations of the different extraterrestrial races involved in these treaty discussions. The paper will further examine why these events were kept secret for so long, the significance of the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower’s meeting with extraterrestrials, and whether an official disclosure announcement is likely in the near future.

Circumstantial Evidence Supporting Eisenhower’s ‘First Contact’ Meeting with Extraterrestrials

There is circumstantial and testimonial evidence supporting Eisenhower’s meeting with extraterrestrials and the start of a series of meetings that culminated in the signing of a treaty with a different group of extraterrestrials. The most intriguing are circumstances surrounding Eisenhower’s alleged winter vacation to Palm Springs, California from February 17-24, 1954. Firstly, the ”vacation for the President” which was announced rather suddenly and came less than a week after Eisenhower’s ‘quail shooting’ vacation in Georgia. According to UFO researcher, William Moore, all this was quite unusual and suggested that there was more to the one week visit to Palm Springs than a simple holiday. [2]
Second, on the Saturday night of February 20, President Eisenhower did go missing fueling press speculation that he had taken ill or even died. In a hastily convened press conference, Eisenhower’s Press Secretary announced that Eisenhower had lost a tooth cap while eating fried chicken and had to be rushed to a local dentist. The local dentist was introduced at an official function on Sunday February 21, as “the dentist who had treated the president”. [3] Moore’s investigation of the incident concluded that the dentist’s visit was being used as a cover story for Eisenhower’s true whereabouts.
Consequently, Eisenhower was missing for an entire evening and could easily have been taken from Palm Springs to the nearby Muroc Airfield, later renamed Edwards Air Force base. The unscheduled nature of the President’s vacation, the missing President and the dentist cover story provide circumstantial evidence that the true purpose of his Palm Springs vacation was for him to attend an event whose importance was such that it could not be disclosed to the general public. A meeting with extraterrestrials may well have been the true purpose of his visit.
Gerald Light’s Letter That Eisenhower Met With Extraterrestrials

The first public source alleging a meeting with extraterrestrials was Gerald Light who in a letter dated April 16, 1954 to Meade Layne, the then director of Borderland Sciences Research Associates (now Foundation), claimed he was part of a delegation of community leaders to an alleged meeting with extraterrestrials at Edwards Air Force Base. In a subsequent article, Meade Layne described Light as a “gifted and highly educated writer and lecturer”, who was skilled both in clairvoyance and the occult. [4] Light was a well-known metaphysical community leader in the Southern California area. The alleged purpose of him and others on the delegation was to test public reaction to the presence of extraterrestrials. Light described the circumstances of the meeting as follows:

‘My dear friends: I have just returned from Muroc [Edwards Air Force Base]. The report is true — devastatingly true! I made the journey in company with Franklin Allen of the Hearst papers and Edwin Nourse of Brookings Institute (Truman’s erstwhile financial advisor) and Bishop MacIntyre of L.A. (confidential names for the present, please). When we were allowed to enter the restricted section (after about six hours in which we were checked on every possible item, event, incident and aspect of our personal and public lives), I had the distinct feeling that the world had come to an end with fantastic realism. For I have never seen so many human beings in a state of complete collapse and confusion, as they realized that their own world had indeed ended with such finality as to beggar description. The reality of the ‘other plane’ aeroforms is now and forever removed from the realms of speculation and made a rather painful part of the consciousness of every responsible scientific and political group. During my two days’ visit I saw five separate and distinct types of aircraft being studied and handled by our Air Force officials — with the assistance and permission of the Etherians! I have no words to express my reactions. It has finally happened. It is now a matter of history. President Eisenhower, as you may already know, was spirited over to Muroc one night during his visit to Palm Springs recently. And it is my conviction that he will ignore the terrific conflict between the various ‘authorities’ and go directly to the people via radio and television — if the impasse continues much longer. From what I could gather, an official statement to the country is being prepared for delivery about the middle of May. [5]
Of course no such formal announcement was made, and Light’s supposed meeting has either been the best-kept secret of the twentieth century or the fabrication of an elderly mystic known for out of body experiences. The events Light describes in his meeting in terms of the panic and confusion of many of those present, the emotional impact of the alleged landing, and the tremendous difference of opinion on what to do in terms of telling the public and responding to the extraterrestrial visitors, are plausible descriptions of what may have occurred. Indeed, the psychological and emotional impact Light describes for senior national security leaders at the meeting is consistent with what could be expected for such a ‘life changing event’. A further way of determining Light’s claim is to investigate the figures he named along with himself as part of the community delegation, and whether they could have been plausible candidates for such a meeting.
Dr Edwin Nourse (1883-1974) was the first chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to the President (1944-1953) and was President Truman’s chief economic advisor. [6] Nourse officially retired to private life in 1953 and would certainly have been a good choice of someone who could give confidential economic advise to the Eisenhower administration. If Dr Nourse was present at such a meeting, he did so in order to provide his expertise on the possible economic impact of First Contact with extraterrestrials. Another of the individuals mentioned by Light was Bishop MacIntyre.
Cardinal James Francis MacIntyre was the bishop and head of the Catholic Church in Los Angeles (1948-1970) and would have been an important gauge for the possible reaction from religious leaders generally, and in particular from the most influential and powerful religious institution on the planet – the Roman Catholic Church. In particular, Cardinal MacIntyre would have been a good choice as a representative for the Vatican since he was appointed the first Cardinal of the Western United States by Pope Pius XII in 1952. All Cardinal MacIntyre’s correspondence is closed to researchers thus making it impossible to confirm what impact the visit to Muroc had on him and what he communicated to other church leaders and the Vatican. [7] Cardinal MacIntyre had sufficient rank and authority to represent the Catholic Church and the religious community in a delegation of community leaders.
The fourth member of the delegation of community leaders was Franklin Winthrop Allen, a former reporter with the Hearst Newspapers Group. [8]   Allen was 80 years old at the time, author of a book instructing reporters on how to deal with Congressional Committee Hearings, and would have been a good choice for a member of the press who could maintain confidentiality.
The four represented senior leaders of the religious, spiritual, economic and newspaper communities and were well advanced in age and status. They would certainly have been plausible choices for a community delegation that could provide confidential advise on a possible public response to a First Contact event involving extraterrestrial races. Such a selection would have constituted a ‘wise men’ group that would have been entirely in character for the conservative nature of American society in 1954. While Light may well contrived such a list in a fabricated account or ‘out of body’ experience as Moore implies in his analysis, there is nothing in Light’s selection that eliminates the possibility that they were plausible members of such a delegation. [9] At face value then, the selection of such a ‘wise men’ group gives some credence to Light’s claim.
It may be concluded then that following items all make up circumstantial evidence that a meeting with extraterrestrials occurred. The first is Eisenhower’s missing night. The second is the weak ‘cover story’ used for Eisenhower’s absence. The third is Light’s description of actual events at the meeting in terms of the psychological and emotional impact of the described meeting which is consistent with what could be anticipated. The final is Light’s description of the composition of community leaders or ‘wise men’ at the meeting. These four items collectively provide circumstantial evidence that a meeting with extraterrestrials occurred and that Eisenhower was present.

Testimonies Supporting Eisenhower’s Meeting With Extraterrestrials

There are a number of other sources alleging an extraterrestrial meeting at Edwards Air force base that corresponded to a formal First Contact event. These sources are based on testimonies of ‘whistleblowers’ that witnessed documents or learned from their ‘insider contacts’ of such a meeting. These testimonies describe what appears to be two separate sets of meetings involving different extraterrestrial groups who met either with President Eisenhower and/or with Eisenhower administration officials over a short period of time. The first of these meetings, the actual ‘First Contact’ event, did not lead to an agreement and the extraterrestrials were effectively spurned. The second of these meetings did lead to an agreement, and this has been apparently become the basis of subsequent secret interactions with extraterrestrial races involved in the ‘treaty’ that was signed. There is some discrepancy in the sequence of meetings and where they were held, but all agree that a ‘First Contact’ meeting involving President Eisenhower did occur, and that one of these meetings occurred with his February 1954 visit to Edwards Air force base.
The first version of Eisenhower’s meeting is described by one of the most ‘controversial’ whistleblowers to ever have come forward into the public arena to describe an extraterrestrial presence. William Cooper served on the Naval Intelligence briefing team for the Commander of the Pacific Fleet between 1970-73, and had access to classified documents that he had to review in order to fulfill his briefing duties. He describes the background and nature of the ‘First contact’ with extraterrestrials as follows:
In 1953 Astronomers discovered large objects in space which were moving toward the Earth. It was first believed that they were asteroids. Later evidence proved that the objects could only be Spaceships. Project Sigma intercepted alien radio communications. When the objects reached the Earth they took up a very high orbit around the Equator. There were several huge ships, and their actual intent was unknown. Project Sigma, and a new project, Plato, through radio communications using the computer binary language, was able to arrange a landing that resulted in face to face contact with alien beings from another planet. Project Plato was tasked with establishing diplomatic relations with this race of space aliens. In the meantime a race of human looking aliens contacted the U.S. Government. This alien group warned us against the aliens that were orbiting the Equator and offered to help us with our spiritual development. They demanded that we dismantle and destroy our nuclear weapons as the major condition. They refused to exchange technology citing that we were spiritually unable to handle the technology which we then possessed. They believed that we would use any new technology to destroy each other. This race stated that we were on a path of self destruction and we must stop killing each other, stop polluting the Earth, stop raping the Earth’s natural resources, and learn to live in harmony. These terms were met with extreme suspicion, especially the major condition of nuclear disarmament. It was believed that meeting that condition would leave us helpless in the face of an obvious alien threat. We also had nothing in history to help with the decision. Nuclear disarmament was not considered to be within the best interest of the United States. The overtures were rejected. [10]
The significant point about Cooper’s version is that the humanoid extraterrestrial race was not willing to enter into technology exchanges that might help weapons development, and instead was focused on spiritual development. Significantly, the overtures of these extraterrestrials were turned down.
Confirmation that the First Contact meeting involved extraterrestrials who were effectively spurned for taking what might be considered a principled stand on technology assistance and nuclear weapons comes from the son of a former Navy Commander who claimed that his father had been present at the First Contact event on February 20-21, 1954. According to Charles L. Suggs, a retired Sgt from the US Marine Corps, his father Charles L. Suggs, (1909-1987) was a former Commander with the US Navy who attended the meeting at Edwards Air force base with Eisenhower. [11] Sgt Suggs recounted his father’s experiences from the meeting in a 1991 interview with a prominent UFO researcher:
Charlie’s father, Navy Commander Charles Suggs accompanied Pres. Ike along with others on Feb. 20th.  They met and spoke with 2 white-haired Nordics that had pale blue eyes and colorless lips.  The spokesman stood a number of feet away from Ike and would not let him approach any closer.  A second nordic stood on the extended ramp of a bi-convex saucer that stood on tripod landing gear on the landing strip.  According to Charlie, there were B-58 Hustlers on the field even though the first one did not fly officially till 1956.  These visitors said they came from another solar system.  They posed detailed questions about our
nuclear testing. [12]
Another ‘whistleblower’ who confirms that First Contact involved an extraterrestrial race being spurned for their principled stand on technology transfer is the son of the famous creator of the Lear Jet, William Lear. John Lear is a former Lockheed L-1011 Captain who flew over 150 test aircraft and held 18 world speed records, and during the late 1960’s, 1970’s and early 1980’s was a contract pilot for the CIA. Lear developed a close relationship with CIA Director (DCI) William Colby who was in charge of covert operations in Vietnam before becoming DCI. According to Lear there had indeed been a warning from another race prior to an agreement being eventually signed, and he claimed they visited Muroc/Edward and the following occurred:
In 1954, President Eisenhower met with a representative of another alien species at Muroc Test Center, which is now called Edwards Airforce Base. This alien suggested that they could help us get rid of the Greys but Eisenhower turned down their offer because they offered no technology. [13]
Cooper’s and Lear’s idea of more than one extraterrestrial race interacting with the Eisenhower administration is supported by other whistleblowers such as former Master Sergeant Robert Dean who like Cooper, had access to top secret documents while working in the intelligence division for the Supreme Commander of a major US military command. In Dean’s 27 year distinguished military career, he served at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe where he witnessed these documents while serving under the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. Dean claimed:
The group at the time, there were just four that they knew of for certain and the Greys were one of those groups. There was a group that looked exactly like we do. There was a human group that looked so much like us that that really drove the admirals and the generals crazy because they determined that these people, and they had seen them repeatedly, they had had contact with them, there had been abductions, there had been contacts… Two other groups, there was a very large group, I say large, they were 6-8 maybe sometimes 9 feet tall and they were humanoid, but they were very pale, very white, didn’t have any hair on their bodies at all. And then there was another group that had sort of a reptilian quality to them. We had encountered them, military people and police officers all over the world have run into these guys. They had vertical pupils in their eyes and their skin seemed to have a quality very much like what you find on the stomach of a lizard. So those were the four they knew of in 1964. [14]
There is some discrepancy in the testimonials as to which Air force base the spurned extraterrestrials met with President Eisenhower and/or Eisenhower administration officials. Cooper claims this occurred at Homestead Air force base in Florida, and not Edwards. [15] On the other hand Lear and Suggs suggest it occurred at Edwards. In his letter, Gerald Light pointed to intense disagreement amongst Eisenhower officials in responding to the extraterrestrials at the Edwards AFB meeting. Such intense disagreement may predictably have occurred if national security officials were responding to an extraterrestrial request to abandon the pursuit of weapons technologies. Given the intensity of the Cold War, the national security officials present may well have decided it was more prudent to seek better terms before agreeing to the extraterrestrials request. Light’s testimony implies that the meeting at Edwards did not result in an agreement, but instead resulted in intense disagreement between Eishenhower officials. Consequently, I will conclude that the Lear and Suggs version is more accurate, and that the ‘First Contact’ meeting occurred at Edwards Air force base in February 20-21, 1954.

 

The Subsequent 1954 Agreement with Extraterrestrials

According to the testimonies examined so far, the February 20-21, 1954 meeting was not successful, and the extraterrestrials were spurned due to their refusal to enter into technology exchanges and insistence on nuclear disarmament by the US and presumably other major world powers. Cooper describes the circumstances of a subsequent agreement that was reached after the failure of the first meeting.  While Cooper has a different version of dates and times for the 1954 meetings, he agrees that there were two sets of meetings involving different extraterrestrials meeting with President Eisenhower and/or Eisenhower administration officials. [16]
Later in 1954 the race of large nosed Gray Aliens which had been orbiting the Earth landed at Holloman Air Force Base. A basic agreement was reached. This race identified themselves as originating from a Planet around a red star in the Constellation of Orion which we called Betelgeuse. They stated that their planet was dying and that at some unknown future time they would no longer be able to survive there. [17]
The meeting at Holloman Air force base in New Mexico has reportedly been the site of subsequent extraterrestrial meetings with the same extraterrestrials who it will be shown signed the 1954 treaty. In 1972-73, for example, the producers Robert Emenegger and Allan Sandler, had allegedly been offered and witnessed actual Air force film footage of a meeting involving Grey extraterrestrials that occurred at Holloman Air force base in 1971. [18] Cooper explained the terms of the 1954 treaty reached with the Grey extraterrestrials as follows:
The treaty stated that the aliens would not interfere in our affairs and we would not interfere in theirs. We would keep their presence on earth a secret. They would furnish us with advanced technology and would help us in our technological development. They would not make any treaty with any other Earth nation. They could abduct humans on a limited and periodic basis for the purpose of medical examination and monitoring of our development, with the stipulation that the humans would not be harmed, would be returned to their point of abduction, would have no memory of the event, and that the alien nation would furnish Majesty Twelve with a list of all human contacts and abductees on a regularly scheduled basis. [19]
Another whistleblower source for a treaty having been signed is Phil Schneider, a former geological engineer that was employed by corporations contracted to build underground bases worked extensively on black projects involving extraterrestrials. He revealed his own knowledge of the treaty in the following:
Back in 1954, under the Eisenhower administration, the federal government decided to circumvent the Constitution of the United States and form a treaty with alien entities. It was called the 1954 Greada Treaty, which basically made the agreement that the aliens involved could take a few cows and test their implanting techniques on a few human beings, but that they had to give details about the people involved. [20]
Schneider’s knowledge of the treaty would have come from his familiarity with a range of compartmentalized black projects and interaction with other personnel working with extraterrestrials. Yet another whistleblower source for an agreement being signed is Dr Michael Wolf, who claims to have served on various policy-making committees responsible for extraterrestrial affairs for twenty five years. [21] He claims that the Eisenhower administration entered into the treaty with an extraterrestrial race and that this treaty was never ratified as constitutionally required. [22]
Significantly, a number of whistleblowers argue that the treaty that was signed involved some compulsion on the part of the extraterrestrials. Don Phillips is a former Air force serviceman and employee on clandestine aviation projects who testified having seen documents describing the meeting between President Eisenhower and extraterrestrials, and the background to a subsequent agreement:
We have records from 1954 that were meetings between our own leaders of this country and ET’s here in California. And, as I understand it from the written documentation, we were asked if we would allow them to be here and do research. I have read that our reply was well, how can we stop you? You are so advanced. And I will say by this camera and this sound, that it was President Eisenhower that had this meeting. [23]
Col Phillip Corso, a highly decorated officer that served in Eisenhower’s National Security Council alluded to a treaty signed by the Eisenhower administration with extraterrestrials in his memoirs. He wrote: “We had negotiated a kind of surrender with them [extraterrestrials] as long as we couldn’t fight them. They dictated the terms because they knew what we most feared was disclosure.” [24]   Corso’s claim of a ‘negotiated surrender’ suggests that some sort of agreement or ‘treaty’ was reached which he was not happy with.

What Do We Know of the Grey Extraterrestrials that signed the Treaty?

According to Cooper, the Grey extraterrestrials signing the treaty were not trustworthy:
By 1955 it became obvious that the aliens had deceived Eisenhower and had broken the treaty…. It was suspected that the aliens were not submitting a complete list of human contacts and abductees to the Majesty Twelve and it was suspected that not all abductees had been returned. [25]
Similarly, Lear argued that the Grey extraterrestrials quickly broke the treaty and could not be trusted:
… a deal was struck that in exchange for advanced technology from the aliens we would allow them to abduct a very small number of persons and we would periodically be given a list of those persons abducted. We got something less than the technology we bargained for and found the abductions exceeded by a million fold than what we had naively agreed to. [26]
Other whistleblowers also suggested that the extraterrestrials who signed the Treaty with Eisenhower couldn’t be trusted. Schneider claimed that despite the treaty’s provisions on the number of humans who would be ‘abducted’ for experiments, “the aliens altered the bargain until they decided they wouldn’t abide by it at all.” [27]
As mentioned earlier, Col Phillip Corso similarly believed that the extraterrestrials that the Eisenhower administration entered into agreements with couldn’t be trusted. Corso believed these forced a ‘negotiated surrender’ suggesting an extraterrestrial agenda that was suspect. While General Douglas Macarthur didn’t directly mention any government treaty with extraterrestrials, he gave a famous warning in October 1955 suggesting that some extraterrestrial presence existed that threatened human sovereignty:
You now face a new world, a world of change. We speak in strange terms, of harnessing the cosmic energy, of ultimate conflict between a united human race and the sinister forces of some other planetary galaxy.” “The nations of the world will have to unite, for the next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets. [28]
Macarthur may well have been alluding to the same extraterrestrials that Corso, Cooper and Lear believed had entered into an agreement with the Eisenhower administration.
Significantly, reports of contacts with extraterrestrials began to change once the alleged treaty began to be implemented. The friendly ‘space brothers’ reports involving contactees of the 1950s changed as reports of abductions began to emerge after the first recorded case in 1961 involving Barney and Betty Hill:
Another apparent pattern that has occurred in Ufology is the dominance of the space brothers in the 1950’s who were kind, interacted with people who became known as contactees, and took people for rides in their space crafts.  This pattern changed dramatically with the abduction of Betty and Barney Hill in the early 1960’s. The space brother human types of the 1950’s seemed to fade away, and they were replaced in the UFO literature with another type of alien.  In the early sixties the first abduction of the Hills began a new pattern where the aliens were grey “evil” aliens who would abduct people against their will, and perform medical procedures on them. There were, as far as this author is aware no confirmed cases of “classic” abductions in the 1950’s. Unlike the “good” space brothers of the 1950’s these grey aliens were described by all, who were unfortunate enough to have met with them, as being distant and without emotions. [29]
According to Wolf, the extraterrestrials were Greys from the fourth planet of the star system Zeta Reticulum, while Cooper claims they were tall Greys from Betelgeuse, Orion. Wolf’s and Cooper’s differing versions likely reflect a close relationship between Greys from Rigel and Betelguese, and that more than one species of extraterrestrials may have been covered in the treaty. Wolf has described the Greys as having positive motivations in regard to their presence on Earth, but have been inhibited and targeted by rogue elements in the US military. [30] Similarly, Robert Dean believes that the extraterrestrials visiting Earth are friendly. [31] This contrasts with the testimonies of Cooper, Lear, Schneider, Corso and arguably even Macarthur over the true motivations of the Greys. It is worth repeating Gerald Light’s claim of a “terrific conflict between the various ‘authorities’” on whether to inform the general public or not. It is likely that these differing perspectives on the motivations of the Greys reflected an uncertainty that has continued to intensely divide policy makers up to the present on how to best respond to the extraterrestrial presence and what to tell the general public. [32]
Maintaining Secrecy and Witness Credibility
The uncertainty over the motivations and behavior of the Grey extraterrestrials appears to have played a large role in the government decision not to disclose the extraterrestrial presence and the treaty Eisenhower signed with them. The following passage from an ‘alleged official document’ leaked to UFO researchers describes the official secrecy policy adopted in April 1954, two months after Eisenhower had ‘First Contact’ with extraterrestrials who were spurned by the Eisenhower administration:
Any encounter with entities known to be of extraterrestrial origin is to be considered to be a matter of national security and therefore classified TOP SECRET. Under no circumstances is the general public or the public press to learn of the existence of these entities. The official government policy is that such creatures do not exist, and that no agency of the federal government is now engaged in any study of extraterrestrials or their artifacts. Any deviation from this stated policy is absolutely forbidden. [33]
Penalties for disclosing classified information concerning extraterrestrials are quite severe. In December 1953, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued Army-Navy-Air Force publication 146 that made the unauthorized release of information concerning UFOs a crime under the Espionage Act, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. [34] According to Robert Dean, this draconian penalty is what prevents most former military servicemen from coming forward to disclose information. [35]
The strategies for dealing with those former servicemen, corporate employees or witnesses brave or ‘foolish’ enough to come forward to reveal classified information is to intimidate, silence, eliminate or discredit these individuals. This policy involves such strategies as removing all public records of former military service men or corporate employees, forcing individuals to make retractions, deliberately distorting statements of individuals, or discrediting individuals. Bob Lazar, for example, claimed to be a former physicist employed with reverse engineering extraterrestrial craft. He described the disappearance of all his university and public records indicating how military-intelligence agencies actively discredit whistleblowers. [36]
In the cases of the witnesses cited so far, Cooper, Schneider, Lear, Wolf, all have been subjected to some or all of these strategies thereby making it difficult to reach firm conclusions about their testimonies. Since the creation of controversy, uncertainty, and confusion is the modus operandi of military-intelligence agencies in maintaining secrecy of the extraterrestrial presence, then the testimonies of former officials/employees/witnesses need to be considered on their merits. While issues of credibility, credentials, disinformation are important in the study of the extraterrestrial presence, a rigorous methodology for dealing with the efforts of military-intelligence agencies to discredit, intimidate or create controversy around particular witnesses, has yet to be developed. For example, numerous efforts to discredit Cooper in particular by referring to inconsistencies in his statements, retractions, egregious behavior and stated positions, may be due in part or in whole to the policy of military-intelligence officials to discredit and/or intimidate Cooper from leaking classified information that he may very well have witnessed in his official capacities.  Since Cooper’s military record does indicate he did serve in an official capacity on the briefing team of the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, it is most likely that much of his testimony is credible. Whatever inaccuracies exist in terms of his recollections of the timing of meetings between the Eisenhower administration and extraterrestrials may either have been due to memory lapses or perhaps deliberately introduced as a self-protective mechanism. It has been pointed out by some ‘whistleblowers’ that making retractions or sowing inaccuracies in testimonies is sometimes essential in disseminating information without being physically harmed. [37] The controversial Cooper had been subjected to undoubtedly the longest and most intense military-intelligence efforts to discredit or intimidate any whistleblower revealing classified information.
The non-disclosure policy developed for the extraterrestrial presence is most likely due to a profound policy dilemma on the part of responsible national security officials.  This dilemma comes from uncertainty over what the true benefits of the purported 1954 treaty were, and what the consequences of the treaty would be. While the signing of the treaty provided US national security agencies an opportunity to study extraterrestrial technologies, and to observe the extraterrestrial biological program with abducted civilians, it appeared the treaty was not as beneficial as was first thought due to excessive abductions of US civilians.
The subsequent behavior of the Greys in their interactions with US national security agencies was the most likely reason for deferring a decision to release news of the treaty and the extraterrestrial presence to the global public. According to Lights’ testimony, Eisenhower had indicated to those present on February 20-21, 1954, that an announcement would be made soon after the First Contact event. Since this didn’t occur, and a treaty was eventually signed with a different group of extraterrestrials, the Greys, this suggested that the national security agencies were deeply divided over the wisdom of disclosing this information, and alarmed by the possible public reaction to the Grey activities.
At his farewell speech in 1961, President Eisenhower was possibly alluding to the growing power of national security agencies that dealt with the extraterrestrial presence and were gaining great power as a result of the dilemma over what to do with the extraterrestrial presence:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
If the President was dissatisfied with the non-disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence, then his speech was indicating that the responsible national security agencies were both dominating public policy and taking a ‘hard-line approach’ that was inconsistent with American democratic ideals.
In the subsequent decades, it appears that on a number of occasions, official disclosure was seriously contemplated. For example, Robert Emenegger and Allan Sandler claimed they were approached by the Pentagon in 1972 to produce an officially sanctioned video that would be used for official public disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence. When the offer was later withdrawn, the reason given was that the time was no longer suitable due to the Watergate Scandal. While it is undoubtedly true that political factors would impact on making a formal disclosure announcement, it is more likely the case that non-disclosure was caused by lack of clarity over what the true motivations of the extraterrestrials were, and the impact an announcement would have on extraterrestrial activities. Making any announcement of the extraterrestrial presence would naturally have lead to questions concerning the extraterrestrials’ motivations and activities. If officials couldn’t agree on appropriate answers, they most likely decided that it was better to defer disclosure rather than threaten national security by making inaccurate announcements.

The precise nature of the extraterrestrial abductions and the medical programs implemented by the Greys has been extensively researched and discussed by a number of UFO researchers. Their conclusions vary widely suggesting that the deep disagreement among private UFO researchers over the motivations and activities of the Greys, very likely mirrors that of official government sources. [38] As long as such uncertainty continues, it appears that disclosure may continue to be deferred until key global events no longer makes the non-disclosure policy viable.

 

Conclusion

An examination of the evidence presented in this paper in terms of whistleblower or witness testimonies raises tremendous problems in terms of coming to a conclusive opinion over: first, the truth of the alleged ‘First Contact’ meeting between Eisenhower and extraterrestrials; second, claims of more than one set of extraterrestrials meeting with the Eisenhower administration; and third, the various policy issues that arise from the meetings and subsequent treaty that was allegedly signed. Most perplexing is how to view the testimonies of whistleblowers who appear sincere, positively motivated and have plausible stories, yet are plagued by controversy, allegations of fraud, inconsistency and other irregularities. Due to the official secrecy policy adopted towards the extraterrestrial presence, it may be concluded that some if not most of the controversy surrounding these individuals has been caused by military-intelligence agencies intent on discrediting whistleblower or witness testimonies.
While there continues to be uncertainty caused by the controversy surrounding whistleblower testimonies and the role of military-intelligence agencies in generating this controversy, the bulk of evidence points to a ‘First Contact’ meeting having occurred during Eisenhower’s Palm Spring vacation on February 20-21, 1954. The testimonies suggest that the extraterrestrials in the First Contact event, a race of tall ‘Nordic’ extraterrestrials were spurned due to their reluctance to provide advanced technology in an agreement. A subsequent meeting and treaty was then signed with a different set of extraterrestrials, commonly called Greys, who did not have the same reluctance in exchanging extraterrestrial technology as part of an agreement.
Most of the available evidence that has found its way into the public arena suggests that the extraterrestrial race with whom the treaty was signed, the Greys, are at best an enigma and at worst simply untrustworthy in their treatment of abducted civilians. The subsequent shift in witness reports from friendly extraterrestrial ‘contacts’ to disturbing ‘abductions’, suggest that the Eisenhower administration had signed a treaty with extraterrestrials whose motivations and activities are an enigma as far as the general public interest is concerned. The activities of the Grey extraterrestrials apparently continues to raise uncertainty for US national security agencies in terms of an appropriate strategic response. [39]   On the contrary, the friendly Nordic ‘space brothers’ faded from the scene since the Eisenhower administration saw them as not sufficiently motivated to serve the technological and strategic goals of US national security agencies.
The question of when disclosure of the treaty signed by Eisenhower and of the extraterrestrial presence might occur is one that has long been anticipated. A recent economic event might be a signal that some form of disclosure is possible in the near future. According to Craig Copetas, Bloomberg News correspondent in Paris, the World Economic Forum at Davos Switzerland from January 21-25, 2004, discussed extraterrestrials at one or more closed sessions. In a story published on January 21, Copetas claimed that “forum officials maintain their five-day program on Partnering for Security and Prosperity requires an unambiguous examination of extraterrestrial presence on Earth.” [40] The Davos Forum is a gauge for trends in the global economy and discusses various topics that have a long term effect on business. The inclusion of conspiracy theories of an extraterrestrial presence and technologies on the formal agenda has significance well beyond the hypothetical nature of the discussion. Various national governments may well be tacitly letting the word out to their ‘friends in the business community’, that they had better start exploring how a future disclosure of an extraterrestrial presence and technologies will influence the business world. Given the discussion at Davos on January 21, 2004, of a possible extraterrestrial presence, and the forthcoming 50th anniversary of Eisenhower’s treaty on February 20-21, it might be speculated that a disclosure announcement may soon be made.
As we approach the 50th anniversary of a First Contact meeting between the US and an extraterrestrial race, we must do so with wonder at the awesome nature of this occasion. At the same time, we must do whatever necessary to make public the full details of the meeting, and the apparent spurning of what appears to be a principled extraterrestrial race that rejected technology transfers while dangerous weapons programs were in place in the US and elsewhere on the planet.  The subsequent signing of a treaty at a later date with an extraterrestrial race willing to trade technology in exchange for ‘limited medical experiments’ with civilians will surely go down in history as a deeply significant event whose effects continues to reverberate through human society. Finally, we must be alert to the mounting evidence that while a treaty was signed after the 1954 ‘First Contact’ event, it may well have been with the ‘wrong extraterrestrials’, and that this might adversely impact on humanity if not dealt with in an open, transparent and truthful manner. We live on the verge of a bold new future with many uncertainties over the secrecy surrounding the extraterrestrial presence, what best prepares us as this information enters into the public arena are our faith, democratic values, and dedication to truth.

 


ENDNOTES
[1] I sincerely thank H.M for his generous support of my research and providing the intellectually stimulating environment for many of the ideas in the paper to be developed. Grateful thanks also to George Arnold and two other librarians at American University’s Main Library who provided research assistance. I am also grateful to William Hamilton for permission to cite his personal notes of a 1991 interview with Sgt Charles L. Suggs. Finally thanks to Clay and Shawn Pickering for arranging interviews with individuals who had personal knowledge of meetings between the Eisenhower administration and extraterrestrials.
[2] William Moore, “UFO’s: Exploring the ET Phenomenon,” Gazette (Hollywood, CA., March 29, 1989). Available online at: http://www.presidentialufo.com/ike&the.htm
[3] William Moore, “UFO’s: Exploring the ET Phenomenon,” http://www.presidentialufo.com/ike&the.htm
[4]   John Spencer, “Light, Gerald,” The UFO Encyclopedia: Inexplicable Sightings, Alien Abductions, Close Encounters, Brilliant Hoaxes (Avon Books, 1991) 188.
[5] “A Covenant With Death by Bill Cooper,” http://www.alienshift.com/id40.html Also in William Cooper, Behold a Pale Horse (Light Technology Publishing 1991), 203.
[6] For biographical details on “Edwin G. Nourse, Ph.D. (1883-1974)”  go to: http://www.coopheroes.org/inductees/nourse.html
[7] For closure of Cardinal McIntyre’s records, see regulations governing access to the Los Angeles Catholic Archives http://www.archivalcenter.org/Archival_Regulations/arcreg.html
[8] Franklin Winthrop Allen was author of Instructions for Reporters for Hearings Before the Interstate Commerce Committee (Dispatch Press, 1918).
[9] See William Moore, “UFO’s: Exploring the ET Phenomenon,” http://www.presidentialufo.com/ike&the.htm
[10] Cooper, “Origin, Identity, and Purpose of MJ-12,” http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/maji007.html
[11] Personal notes from Bill Hamilton from a 1991 interview with Sgt Suggs.
[12] Personal notes from William Hamilton from a 1991 interview with Sgt Suggs. See also William Hamilton, Cosmic Top Secret (Inner Light, 1992).
[13] “John Lear Disclosure Briefing,” Coast to Coast Radio (November, 2003) http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/11/02.html
[14] 21st Century Radio’s Hieronimus & Co. “Transcript of Interview with Bob Dean, March 24, 1996,”  http://www.planetarymysteries.com/hieronimus/bobdean.html . See also Larry Lowe, “Perspective on Robert O. Dean: Let’s Listen to the Man,” (CNI News, 1995) http://www.reptilianagenda.com/research/r110199j.html
[15] Milton William Cooper, “Origin, Identity, and Purpose of MJ-12,” http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/maji007.html . See also Cooper, Behold A Pale Horse, 202.
[16]   Milton William Cooper, “Origin, Identity, and Purpose of MJ-12,” http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/maji007.html
[17] Milton William Cooper, “Origin, Identity, and Purpose of MJ-12,” http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/maji007.html
[19] Milton William Cooper, “Origin, Identity, and Purpose of MJ-12,” http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/maji007.html, also in Cooper, Behold a Pale Horse, 203-04.
[20] Phil Schneider, “MUFON Conference Presentation, 1995,” available online at: http://www.anomalous-images.com/text/schneid.html
[21] See Chris Stoner, ‘The Revelations of Dr Michael Wolf on the UFO Cover Up and ET Reality,” (October 2000) http://www3.mistral.co.uk/futurepositive/mdrwolf.htm
[22] See Richard Boylan, “Official Within MJ-12 UFO-Secrecy Management Group Reveals Insider Secrets,”  http://www.drboylan.com/wolfdoc2.html
[23]   “Testimony of Don Phillips,” Disclosure, ed., Stephen Greer (Crossing Point, 2001) 379
[24]   Phillip Corso, The Day After Roswell (Pocket Books, 1997) 292.
[25] Milton William Cooper, “Origin, Identity, and Purpose of MJ-12,” http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/maji007.html, also in Cooper, Behold a Pale Horse, 209.
[26] “John Lear Disclosure Briefing,” Coast to Coast Radio (November, 2003) http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/11/02.html
[27] Phil Schneider, MUFON Conference Presentation, 1995, available online at: http://www.anomalous-images.com/text/schneid.html
[28] “UFO Quotes by Astronauts and Cosmonauts,” http://ufos.my100megs.com/ufoquotes.htm
[29] “’Good’ versus ‘Bad Alien’, http://www.presidentialufo.com/good_bad_alien.htm
[30] See Chris Stoner, ‘The Revelations of Dr Michael Wolf on the UFO Cover Up and ET Reality,” (October 2000) http://www3.mistral.co.uk/futurepositive/mdrwolf.htm
[31] 21st Century Radio’s Hieronimus & Co. “Transcript of Interview with Bob Dean, March 24, 1996,”  http://www.planetarymysteries.com/hieronimus/bobdean.html
[32] For description of Wolf’s association with the Greys, see Chris Stoner, ‘The Revelations of Dr Michael Wolf on the UFO Cover Up and ET Reality,” (October 2000) http://www3.mistral.co.uk/futurepositive/mdrwolf.htm
[33] Majestic 12 Group, “Special Operations Manual, SOM1-01 – Extraterrestrial Entities and Technology, Recovery and Disposal,” April 1954   Part 2 http://209.132.68.98/pdf/som101_part2.pdf
[34] 21st Century Radio’s Hieronimus & Co. “Transcript of Interview with Bob Dean, March 24, 1996,”  http://www.planetarymysteries.com/hieronimus/bobdean.html
[35] See 21st Century Radio’s Hieronimus & Co. “Transcript of Interview with Bob Dean, March 24, 1996,”  http://www.planetarymysteries.com/hieronimus/bobdean.html

[36] “Bob Lazar on the Billy Goodman Happening” December 20, 1989 http://www.swa-home.de/lazar3.htm

[37] Author interviews with anonymous whistleblowers.
[38] See Michael Salla, “Disinformation, Extraterrestrial Subversion & Psychological Reductionism – A Reply to Dr Richard Boylan,” www.exopolitics.org January 7, 2004. http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-11.htm
[39] For discussion of US strategy in dealing with extraterrestrials, see Michael Salla, The Failure of Power Politics as a Strategic Response to the Extraterrestrial Presence – Developing Human Capacity as a Viable Global Defense Strategy, www.exopolitics.org (January 1, 2004). http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper-7.htm
[40] A. CRAIG COPETAS, “Extraterrestrial edge helps the balance sheet,”
Bloomberg News (01/21/04). Available online at: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2365195

 

 

homeaboutpapers initiatives courseseventsshopmedia foundersupport recommended readinglinks
copyright © 2003 – 2007 2014 Dr Michael Salla · web design by lamiroy consulting
http://exopolitics.org/Study-Paper-8.htm
93070B7D-2AB9-9C18-AB40-1A028203032E
Y2:93070B7D-2AB9-9C18-AB40-1A028203032E