US Government Psychic Super Computer? The Ultimate High Strangeness

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 24 Feb 2015 18:35 CET
The U.S. Plans to Develop Psychic Supercomputer To Predict Attacks
© Flickr/Carolyn Speranza
As the US government begins looking for creative solutions to its cybersecurity woes, it’s focusing on “psychic computers,” machines capable of predicting attacks long before they happen. But an army of omniscient supercomputers may raise new concerns for privacy advocates.

Every morning, hundreds of meteorologists wake, fill their coffee mugs, and take one bold look at the sky. What will tomorrow bring? Rain, sun, snow? Hurricane? Polar vortex? These are the predictions that meteorologists make every day.

Now imagine using the same idea to foresee the next cyberattack.

The US government is hoping to develop a computer which would do just that. The intelligence community is opening a contest to software engineers to see who can develop the technology.

Known as the Cyber-attack Automated Unconventional Sensor Environment, or CAUSE, the project was conceived by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) as a four-year race to develop the software. Whoever does so first will receive an as-yet undetermined financial prize.

Nearly 150 competitors from the private sector and academia have expressed interest.

“[This is] an industry that has invested heavily in analyzing the effects or the symptoms of cyberattacks instead of analyzing and mitigating the – cause – of cyberattacks,” IARPA program manager Rob Rahmer told Nextgov. “Instead of reporting relevant events that happen today or in previous days, decision makers will benefit from knowing what is likely to happen tomorrow.”

The idea is to analyze data that floats in the social media sphere, as well as other sources in the deep web, to detect a broader pattern.

“If you were able to look at every single Facebook post and you processed everything and ran it through some filter, through the conversations and the little day-to-day things people do, you could actually start to see larger patterns and you could imagine that is a ton of data,” David Burke, research lead for machine learning at computer science research firm Galois, told Nextgov. “You would need some sort of big data technology that you’d have to bring to bear to be able to digest all that.”

It’s a big job. Only a computer could be capable of sorting through the millions of daily Facebook posts, everything from political outrage, to prom selfies, to slightly disgruntled grandfathers posting breadstick complaints to the page of a Hyattsville Olive Garden.

But that kind of massive data collection isn’t exactly a popular notion, given the current climate surrounding the revelations of Edward Snowden about NSA spying.

“Currently, CAUSE is planned to be an unclassified program,” Rahmer said.

But that only applies to its current, contest stage of development. While contest participants will not be given access to the National Security Agency intel, it is unclear how this technology could blend with the surveillance apparatus once completed.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced the formation of a new cybersecurity agency called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center. That agency’s goal is to “connect the dots between various cyber threats in as close as real time as possible,” according to an anonymous White House officials speaking to the Washington Post.

“The internet cannot be protected by the government, because the government will never permit a system that it can’t zero into,” Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox Business. “Any government agency that is big enough to protect us, is big enough to surveil us.”

While the “real-time” aspect of the CTIIC’s mission statement may worry privacy advocates, so-called psychic computers may present even graver concerns, potentially allowing the government to twist its way even deeper into Americans’ digital lives.

Comment: This technology is a slippery slope. It may be originally used for cyberattacks, but it could applied in so many other ways that should give us all pause. There should be serious concerns for all if government implements a real life Minority Report

UFOs and the CIA: A Close Encounter Of The Wrong Kind

4629151.5639611

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

A Die-Hard Issue

Gerald K. Haines

 

WARNING:  Before reading this lengthy commentary, be aware of the fact that this is but one of many, well-developed methods the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community uses via social media to disseminate its own disinformation, where they continuously lie in an effort to dissuade the public from believing that UFOs are real.  What’s so even more interesting, is how the intelligence community in general has trouble keeping their own lies straight, where they appear to continuously contradict themselves.  This is now a well-oiled machine, that is regularly reinforced by the media.  I find it most interesting how the CIA places propaganda on their own servers.  Do they really think that anyone with even half a brain will be stupid enough to believe that the CIA’s own “alleged cover-up” is an accurate one?  Give me a break!

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Early CIA Concerns, 1947-52

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

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

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

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

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

Amateur photographs of alleged UFOs

Passoria, New Jersey, 31 July 1952

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

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

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

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

The Robertson Panel, 1952-53

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1950s: Fading CIA Interest in UFOs

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIA’s U-2 and OXCART as UFOs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1960s: Declining CIA Involvement and Mounting Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the late 1970s and 1980s, the Agency continued its low-key interest in UFOs and UFO sightings. While most scientists now dismissed flying saucers reports as a quaint part of the 1950s and 1960s, some in the Agency and in the Intelligence Community shifted their interest to studying parapsychology and psychic phenomena associated with UFO sightings. CIA officials also looked at the UFO problem to determine what UFO sightings might tell them about Soviet progress in rockets and missiles and reviewed its counterintelligence aspects. Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relating to UFOs. These included counterintelligence concerns that the Soviets and the KGB were using US citizens and UFO groups to obtain information on sensitive US weapons development programs (such as the Stealth aircraft), the vulnerability of the US air-defense network to penetration by foreign missiles mimicking UFOs, and evidence of Soviet advanced technology associated with UFO sightings.

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Gerald K. Haines is the National Reconnaissance Office historian.

 

Historical Document

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

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?

Learned Psi: Training To Be Psychic

 

 

Is it possible to take normal, healthy, emotionally stable people who do not think they’re psychic, and haven’t really had any prior experiences to their knowledge, and train them to become functionally, reliable psychics?

YES and NO.

That is, it appears that everyone may have some latent psychic potential that can be developed and honed with the right type of positive feedback and reinforcement.

However, it’s crucial that such feedback occur very close in time to when the person makes a correct or incorrect statement, otherwise it will have little, if any, effect.  In order for this learning paradigm to function properly, a person must slowly come to recognize what internal feelings and sensations are associated with accurate paranormal information (signal) access as opposed to inaccurate information, a.k.a. primary process distortion and fantasy (noise).

I suspect that only a very small percentage of the population, maybe between five and ten percent, possess such inherent faculties that are consistently demonstrable.

This is somewhat comparable to sports in that most people can occasionally participate in some kind of sport when young, but few have the strength, stamina, endurance, reflexes and coordination necessary to become a professional athlete in any given sport.

As I’m really into motorsports like Formula 1 and American Le Mans road racing, let’s just look at that particular event for a direct analog.

While everyone can essentially drive a car, few could tolerate the extremely high g-loading forces on the neck and arms, where your body would suddenly feel like it weighs four to five times it’s weight.  Even fewer would have the stamina, endurance, depth perception, reflexes and hand, eye, foot coordination to be competitive in such a grueling physical sport.  But this doesn’t mean that one cannot learn things to improve their driving skills on the road.

Our psi training groups were held at UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute (NPI) [now the Semel Institute] on Wednesday nights from 1971 through 1980.  These training groups, applied positive feedback and reinforcement incorporating a free-verbal response (FVR) as opposed to forced-choice method, as a learning paradigm to enhance and train paranormal perception.

Put more simply, we were attempting to teach people how to differentiate and distinguish between normal fantasy and/or cognitively processed thoughts and informational input from sources that are non-localized from them in space and time, e.g. ESP.

In those halcyon times, these perceptions were referred to as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and retrocognition, as opposed to the all-encompassing “remote viewing” nomenclature of today.  A rose by any other name.

Over the first few years, we had numerous recurring visitors from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the National Security Agency (NSA), National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Defense Language Institute (DLI) and the Defense Advanced Research Project’s Agency (DARPA) as they became very interested in what we were doing and had already achieved.

Initially, we had no knowledge whatsoever of who these recurring visitors were or where they were from until the sessions were completed (a single blind condition).

On one particular early visit, our group was simply given the first name of a man.  We suddenly began describing very specific details of a new nuclear ballistic missile submarine and it’s new, highly accurate, long-range missiles.

When the feedback part of this session was reached and the room lights we turned back on, we were witness to several men sitting there with their collective mouths hanging open with ashen white faces.  What in the hell was going on?

Of what they could reveal, our comments very accurately described many of the details for the new Trident ballistic missile submarine (a boomer) and its ten-MIRV’D, D-5 missile.   This was all highly classified, sensitive data that we could not have known or had access to.

I guess these visitors were impressed by what we did, as these military intelligence officers immediately demanded the surrender of the audio tape from that session and that we all sign national security oaths.  Needless to say, we complied.

Representatives of the various intelligence groups made repeated visits to our group over time to assure themselves that our success on that first night was not a coincidence or a trick.

After we demonstrated that what we were doing was real, demonstrable and reproducible, the various intelligence groups asked that we work with and for them in several capacities.

Sounded like an interesting and compelling proposition?

However, there was one unanticipated and insurmountable obstacle regarding this; UCLA.

Apparently, both UCLA and the NPI itself, were horrified at the thought of being formally, publicly and professionally linked to parapsychology, which was thought of at the time as pseudo-science and quackery by mainstream science, but especially by behavioral science.  Such an alliance could have been political suicide for a university dependent on public perception and regular endowments?

Isn’t it interesting that more than four decades later, and nothing’s really changed, has it?  Perhaps the fact that the NPI was already associated with psycho-surgery and orbital undercutting, was all the negative press it could tolerate?

Due to our unavailability dictated by university politics and damage control, the government’s focus shifted northward to Menlo Park, California.

After having conducted these groups for seven years, even the continued positive results we were achieving were now boring. You know, that been there, done that, sort of feeling.

More specifically, the ability of reaching into anothers mind or observing things at a distance, we now perceived as somewhat commonplace and ordinary.  Hard to believe, I know.

However, when there is high degree of success and continuity with such extraordinary research efforts, one tends to become jaded.  I guess that this attitude is just part of being human in that we begin taking things for granted.

In an effort to make things more interesting, we decided to attempt our first precognitive effort with this group.

We turned off the lights in the NPI’s C-floor observation/conference room and went through our normal progressive muscular relaxation procedure.  Once we had attained this hypo-metabolic state, we mentally focused on the “target” person of the next week’s first session.

In a way, the verbal reinforcements given during this part of this session were similar to what Christopher Reeve as Richard Collier in Somewhere In Time (Universal, 1980) verbalized when attempting to physically transport himself back through time.  Except of course, we didn’t expect to physically travel in time, and obviously we weren’t producing a fantasy film at the time either.

We began describing the “target” person as a tall, beautifully statuesque, blue-eyed blond girl dressed in a tan business suit.  We continued our verbalizations into the centrally placed, amplified, microphone within the otherwise sensory-deprived room as we clearly saw the specific number on the chair in which she was sitting (there were twenty-four chairs in this conference room, each of which was numbered).

As the session continued, we “saw” a very large mansion-like home, within which was a large baby-grand piano. Numerous bits of varying types of personal information continued to flow from our mouths for quite some time.  And then, silence.

Vocally piercing the darkened conference room, we all abruptly began describing a tall man wearing all black, with a black hat, black mask, a flowing black cape and an imposing sword.  I remember thinking, what kind of crap are we uttering?  The session ended and we didn’t give much thought to what we had just said because it wasn’t relevant yet.

It was now one week later and another group was about to begin.  However, on this particular evening, no guest member from the prior week was allowed to bring a visitor.  Any new participants on this night could only arrive through third parties who had not been in attendance for the last several weeks, i.e., through independent means.

When each new person arrived they were handed a sealed envelope with a number from one through twelve written on a piece of paper within it.  Once in the conference room, we rolled the dice and then asked all new visitors to open their sealed envelopes.  Whichever person’s number fit the dice roll was the randomly chosen target person for the first session.

We had all pretty much forgotten what we had said a week earlier, so when a statuesque blue-eyed, blond girl’s number matched the dice roll, we didn’t give it second thought.

I asked this stunning 19-yr old woman, named Toni, to replay the audiotape from the week before and if she heard any statements that directly related to her, stop the tape and comment on them. If the statements were incorrect, let the tape run without interruption.  Toni didn’t immediately understand what I just said, forcing me clarify this protocol again.

Toni listens, as voices clearly describe her appearance and clothing in detail as well as the exact number of the chair she is seated in.  Her look is one of astonishment, although the best was yet to come.  When she hears the specific description of the mansion in the hills with the baby grand piano, her eyes open even wider, as those data points were also correct.  But those could have been coincidence, couldn’t they?

However, then came what I believe to be one of the most fascinating pieces of precognized information that has ever been documented?  Let’s see if you agree.

When we finished our discourse on the black costumed man with the mask and sword, Toni let out a somewhat muffled scream.  There was hesitation in her voice and for good reason.

Toni looked at me and said: “How do you know who I am?”  My immediate response was to look at her while shrugging my shoulders, “What do you mean, who you are?”  Toni tells our group that her full name is “Toni Williams”.  We all looked at Toni with blank, expressionless faces, as we did not understand what she was referring to.  Who was Toni Williams?

Realizing that our group really didn’t know who “Toni Williams” was, she connected the dots for us.  Apparently, Toni knew all too well exactly who the masked, darkly dressed, swordsman was.  In fact, she knew him for her entire life.

The ornately costumed man turned out to be her father, Guy Williams, the actor who played Zorro in the Disney television series from the late fifties and early sixties. You might better remember Guy Williams from another TV series in the mid-sixties, where he played Professor John Robinson in CBS’s Lost In Space.

Guy Williams as "Zorro"
Guy Williams as “Zorro”

 

Toni was speechless and just a little frightened.  She looked at all of us as though we were beings from another reality.  She sheepishly asked when this tape was made and we told her exactly one week earlier.  However, Toni did not even know of, or that she was even coming to our group until several hours earlier that very day!

 

Toni’s question was a simple one. How could we have so accurately described her and her surroundings seven days earlier when she wasn’t even aware of us, or of our group?

Indeed, how could we have perceived such an event unless the information pertaining to it already existed?  What are the odds of us accurately describing such state specific information about an event one hundred and sixty eight hours before it occurred?

What’s the probability of our precisely describing the Zorro character as related to his daughter one week prior to her random appearance and selection as a target in our group?  A million-to-one? A billion-to-one?  A trillion-to-one?  Okay, let’s just say astronomical and leave it at that!  Does this event sound like we were randomly guessing as to the shape of things to come?

Guy Williams
Guy Williams

Believe it or not, there have been those individuals over the decades that actually believed that we somehow deduced or logically inferred the

information described herein.  Give me a break?

Needless to say, Toni never again returned to participate in one of our research groups, as her one experience with us was more than enough. I can certainly understand how unsettling such an unusual experience can be.  But then, as I think about it, maybe I can’t.

As we were all very impressed with our first foray into the future, we attempted to replicate our results several months later, little knowing what the full emotional impact of such accurately precognized information would have on some of us.

During this second attempt things went very differently though.  All any of us could “sense” was fire, and more fire.  We didn’t know why this was, but it certainly wasn’t worth getting all that upset over.  Well, at least, not until the next day.

On that following Thursday, while up in the lab on 2-South of the NPI, I heard the arrival of many fire engines.  Racing down to the C-Floor, I discovered that our conference room had apparently caught fire due to a shorting socket that sparked the drapes covering the room’s west-facing wall.  What a coincidence and shock (oops, there’s another pun).  And no, I did not start the fire myself to produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.

After these two successful treks into the future, several of our regular group members became depressed and starting having anxiety attacks about the possibility that the future is as immutable as the past, and that free will may be little more than an illusion.

My response to these reactions was simple, “Who cares!  We’re still going to live out our lives making daily judgments and choices without knowing the shape of things to come whether the future is random and open to change or predestined.”  For some reason, my attitude regarding such matters doesn’t seem to be shared by many others.  Why is that?

For some reason, I cannot as yet fathom the belief that reality is random and chaotic.  To me personally, my experiences and research strongly suggest that reality is finitely ordered and predetermined, and this belief gives me a sense of inner peace.

Maybe I just can’t accept the notion that anything as vast and extraordinarily intricate and complex as the universe could be the result of random, chaotic energy.  No way!  Or perhaps, I’ve had way too many precognitive experiences growing up, both in and out of the lab environment to believe otherwise.

Another fascinating incident occurred several years earlier when a semi-regular to our group, Janet, decided to act as a target for the first time, something she had always refused to do.   The room lights were extinguished, the microphones were turned on and target was given as a man’s first name, and the rest followed in short order.

Many of us started describing a large, expensive home in a very rustic and seemingly lush, forested area.  The home had very large, walls made of glass looking out into what seemed like trees and shrubs.  The kitchen was lined, quite oddly, with empty jars of Bac-O -Bits.   We then began trying to phonetically articulate this man’s last name.   While I am unable to provide his name due to privacy concerns as he was and still is quite famous,  our vocalizations were within about 98% of accuracy even though it’s a rather peculiar last name.

But that was nothing compared to what was about to come forth from our collective mouths.  We began vividly describing this man being brutally mugged by several people, it was quite horrible in its ferocity.   As we were quite sickened by what we just saw in our mind’s eye, we decided to stop the session at that point.  Turning the lights back on, we handed Janet the recorder controls and told her to play back the tape and respond accordingly.

This man was someone that Janet had been dating at the time, and he lived in a house almost identical to what we had just described, even down to the point of the empty jars of Bac-O-Bits lining the lower, exposed shelves in the kitchen.   When we learned of this man’s last name, it was truly astounding as to how close our pronunciations of it were.   But when Janet hit the part of her friend being mugged and she was emphatic that such an event had never occurred to either him or her.  At least that what she believed.

Several days later I received a rather frantic call from Janet while in the lab.  She informed me that on the very night she was participating in our group, her friend was up in the San Francisco Bay area, and was being viciously mugged at the exact time her session was transpiring in our lab.

But wait, if Janet did not know what was happening to her friend hundreds of miles away, then what was the source of our accurate psychic perceptions?

Several years later, one of our regulars, a director by the name of Steve (and no, not Spielberg), who bore a striking resemblance to an older, thicker featured Christopher Reeve, brought a female friend to our group by the name of Roberta.  She also volunteered to be a target.  Other than her first name we had no idea who she was or what type of unsettling event was about to occur.

Roberta simply gave us the name Al, and that was it.  We had no way to knowing who Al was or who he was related to Roberta.

In our sensory deprived room, we began describing him as being around 6’2″, rather stocky, with reddish-brown hair and blue eyes.  We went on to discuss that he had a very unusual voice and was extremely volatile and violent, where we saw him repeatedly beating Roberta and his eventually killing her.  As our comments were getting more and more disturbing in nature, we thought that it was best that we stop the session at that point.

With the lights on, Roberta took the recorder control and started playing the tape back.  She was visibly upset, and for good reason.

Roberta told us that Al was her husband, the actor named Albert Salmi, who was always cast as the heavy or villain.  If you’ve watched TV during the

Albert Salmi

last sixty years, you’ve certainly seen him in everything from Cheyenne, Bonanza, Alfred Hitchcock to three appearances on the original Twilight Zone series, two of the half-hour shows and one hour-long episode.

Remember the show entitled “Execution” (1960), where a man named Joe Caswell, is about to be hanged for murder in the wild west when he suddenly disappears from the hangman’s noose and appears within a time machine at the laboratory of Russel Johnson (the professor from Gilligans Island) in 1960?  Johnson utters one of the all-time great one liners “I know this isn’t very scientific, but I don’t like his looks”.

Caswell eventually kills Johnson’s character and ends up being strangled with a window-shade cord by a contemporary burglar.  The burglar then ends up wandering into the time machine which he accidentally activates, sending him back to the past where he end’s up materializing in the same hangman’s noose that Caswell began the show in.

Our physical description of Salmi was perfect, as were many other details of his life and living conditions.  Finally, Roberta gets to the end where we commented on Salmi’s volatile/violent nature.

Very reluctantly, she admitted that Al’s been chronically beating her for years and she fears that one day he will kill her.  As if this happened yesterday, we told here to leave Albert ASAP.  She looked at us as if to say “What, leave Al?”

More than twelve years later, on April of 1990, Albert Salmi, then 62, first shot his wife Roberta, then 55,  and then himself.

Back at our groups in the late ’70’s, Steve brings yet another guest to our group.   This time, it’s well known character actor who’s worked in both movies and television for decades.  You’d recognize his face and voice in a heartbeat.  Due to privacy concerns, his name will not be mentioned here, but let’s call him Robert.

Robert volunteers to be the target.  The protocols are followed and we begin uttering some very strange things in the pitch black room.  While we were clearly given the name of a woman, several of us simultaneously start commenting on the fact that this woman, was actually a man, a transsexual.

When we finished with the session, Robert began his commentary on our words as if nothing we said was at all relevant.  As Robert began verifying one thing after another, the tape finally came to the part where we discussed the altered sexuality of Robert’s friend, whom he lived with.

Once Robert heard what we had said, he turned red in the face, rapidly stood up from his chair and abruptly left the room, never to return.

Steve later informed us about Robert’s transsexual girlfriend, which then explained his rapid departure from our room.  This was probably the last thing that Robert ever expected us to pick up, which is why it occurred.

In what was now well known to us, the more deeply buried something was within the target person’s mind, the more likely it was to show up in our comments.  And, as part of the introduction to new group participants was to not censor yourself when verbalizing your thoughts, we freely spoke whatever thoughts entered our heads, and it was all too often quite accurate.

Perhaps the most unexpected and astonishing moments of this psi training program was when a girl by the name of Paula visited our group in late 1979.  Paula was a rather intense poltergeist agent who is discussed in my book Aliens Above, Ghosts Below: Explorations of the Unknown.  While her session was unremarkable in terms of its informational content, it’s visual component was most memorable.

While seated in our pitch-black room, a very large, bright red, luminous anomaly was emitted by her petite form.

This amazing visual display was about the size of an average human head and almost perfectly spherical in shape.  It rapidly shot out across the rather larger room and then just disappeared as if someone had turned off a light bulb.

Our entire group jumped in almost perfect unison upon witnessing this incredible fireworks-like manifestation, and several of us responded with a loud vocal reaction.

We immediately turned the lights on to find Paula crouched down and cowering in her chair, like a terrified 8-year old child.   She immediately got up and ran out of the room and the NPI, immediately driving herself home.  She never returned to the group, and I do not blame her.

Our psi training groups ran from 1971 through 1980 at the NPI.  Once the lab closed, we moved the groups to various off-campus office complexes in the Westwood area for several years and then into the home of one of our regular members.

The program finally ended in 1987, with over 3,200 separate sessions being conducted.   The qualitative and quantitative data collected was truly extraordinary and the evidence was overwhelming in terms of demonstrating a highly reproducible paranormal event on demand.

That’s why all the various government agencies were so damn interested in what we were doing.  We witnessed meteorological effects, tidal effects, as well as the far more subtle, yet pronounced, emotional ones.

I seriously doubt if I’ll ever again experience such a consistent level of controlled paranormal experimental results.

Those were the days.

What was learned and accomplished from this program was truly amazing.   That psi is both space-like and time-like, which in layman’s terms means that it is not affected by distance or time, in that it is indeed possible to access information regarding people and events that are not local to you in both time and space.

That there’s really no fundamental difference between telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition or retrocognition.   What we call such remotely accessed information entirely depends on where we are at the time we perceive it and where it appears to come from.  That is, if it comes from our past, we call such information retrocognition. If it comes from our future, we describe such perception as precognition.  If the information stems from a human mind at any distance, it’s classified as telepathic, and if such remotely accessed information is spatially displaced from us without the mediation of another mind, we call that clairvoyance.  In the end, it’s all little more than than remote accessing of information from our bodies without working through our normal sensory systems.

But most importantly, was that it is indeed possible to “train” some people to become psychic.  However, there is a major qualifier here.

Just as it is possible to improve anyone’s golfing score or auto racing skills, few will become professionals athletes in either sport.  Everyone comes to the party with an inherent or latent psychic potential.

On one side side of the bell curve are those people who with some training will become psychic superstars in the purist sense of the word.

On the other side of the curve are those people who are totally immune to any type of learning methods as their psychic potential is extremely low or non-existent.

In the middle of the curve, are those people who have occasional encounters with paranormal perception, but it’s almost random and mostly totally dependent on the specific situation, where emotionally stressful events are the trigger and mediator.

Additionally, each person who does positively respond to these methods seems to develop along different lines.  That is, our psychic perception is attracted to and repelled from information just as our conscious mind is.  This is a very subjective, need-relevant based mechanism, where we pay attention to those things that are very important to us and we’re attracted to, or repulsed from.  You could almost refer to this process as being related to the approach-avoidance mechanism spoken of in psychology.

One final word of caution here though.

We did have those situations wherein once someone’s consciousness was opened up to this data acquisition method, they began having problems mediating the process and turning it off.  And all too often, information was perceived that was very upsetting, unnerving and anxiety producing, especially if it dealt with matters that were out of the control of the recipient.

When this occurred, individuals would have severe anxiety or panic attacks, that occasionally resulted in serious emotional scarring.  I could write another entire book, based purely on the fallout experienced due to the lack of any proper coping mechanism such people had to this alteration of their perceptual abilities.  From developing a messianic complex, to religious zealotry, delusions of grandeur, paranoid schizophrenia, dissociative thinking and borderline personalities.   It’s was all there, and they were not that uncommon of a reaction to this process.

URGENT:  THE CONSCIOUSNESS ALTERING PROCESS BRIEFLY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS NOT A JOKE OR TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.  IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RESTRUCTURING OF THE WAY WE PROCESS INFORMATION BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT OF OURSELVES.  THIS CAN DRAMATICALLY ALTER ONES LIFE AND NOT ALWAYS IN THE MOST POSITIVE WAYS. 

IN WAYS FAR TOO DETAILED AND LENGTHY TO EXPLAIN HERE, SUCH SUDDEN AND PERHAPS UNFORESEEN CONSCIOUSNESS DEVELOPMENT CAN BE A TRAP, WHEREIN ONE PAYS MORE ATTENTION TO WHAT’S GOING ON INSIDE THEIR HEAD AS OPPOSED TO WHAT’S TRANSPIRING AROUND THEM IN THE REAL, PHYSICAL WORLD.  ADDITIONALLY,  THERE IS ALWAYS THE INHERENT PRIMARY PROCESS (NOISE) WHICH WILL CREATE DISTORTION, AS WELL AS AN ELEMENT OF REFABRICATION AND DENIAL. 

IN LAYMAN’S TERMS, THIS MEANS THAT THIS MECHANISM IS FLAWED WITH A RELATIVELY LOW SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO IN MOST CASES AND DOES NOT WORK PERFECTLY.  FACTORS SUCH AS MOTIVATION, STIMULATION, FATIGUE, BOREDOM, ANXIETY AND PROACTIVE INHIBITION ARE ALL MEDIATING VARIABLES GENERALLY NOT UNDER ONES CONTROL THAT WILL INEVITABLY AFFECT ONE’S PERFORMANCE IN THIS REGARD.

THEREFORE, ENTER THIS REALM AT YOUR OWN WELL-INFORMED RISK.

Disinforming The Paranormal and Ufology

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You all know what disinformation is, right?  This method, commonly used in war-fighting and intelligence work, is VERY important to consider when dealing with the paranormal and ufology, as it appears that the powers that be want to keep the public both uninformed and misdirected on these topics.

Disinformation is when people are fed erroneous information regarding a specific subject(s) with the intention of creating an illusory reality so as to misdirect ones’ attention from one event onto another, or to obfuscate the truth with a generic lie.

One method is where a major lie is surrounded with many truthful facts.  When the truths are proven to be genuine, the lie in their midst is taken along for the same ride and believed to be authentic.

Another common method is where a great truth is encapsulated amongst many lies. When the lies are proven to be misinformation, the truth is also believed to be a lie.

As simple as these disinformational methods appear, they work very effectively on people who are conditioned to believe in what they’re told by authority figures, are uneducated, ignorant or generally apathetic about things they don’t know much about.  It’s often necessary to read between-the-lines when governments are officially pontificating or sponsors are advertising their products on TV.  I’m sure that we”re all quite familiar with the term “truth in advertising”, right?

One relatively recent instance involved our government’s officially terminating it’s remote viewing program some time ago.  Afterwords, they hired some professional debunkers (whose names have been omitted here to avoid any legal consequences) to re-evaluate the results from the many years of research and application.

Once these debunkers finished their manipulation of this program’s statistics, it suddenly appeared as if the entire remote viewing program was little more than an experiment in stupidity, gullibility and naivety coupled with an error in judgment and reasoning on the part of our military and intelligence community (which of course is always possible when dealing with any government).

These debunkers then claimed that with their “corrected” statistics, all the years of significantly positive qualitative and quantitative results were actually meaningless dogma and amounted to little more than the work of ignorant zealots who were misinterpreting their own data.   One may ask why our government even resorted to disinformation regarding such an underfunded and poorly utilized intelligence program? The reason is rather simple and yet complicated at the same time.

Even after all the development work, numerous experiments and applied usage of remote viewing, no one really understood how and why it worked, and why, on occasion, it failed.  Our scientific theories and models of space-time and consciousness are far too crude to encompass such extraordinary perceptual events.

However, the brilliant minds in our government wanted to insure that our immediate, as well as any potential future enemies, could never employ such non-localized spying techniques against us, as there are no known effective countermeasures against remote viewing.

The most efficient way to protect us against against future paranormal adversaries would be to make everyone believe that remote viewing never worked to begin with and that it’s nothing more than a waste of time, money, material and assets.  Yeah right?

During the initial phases of the remote viewing work, the United States Navy was so paranoid that Soviet psychic spies could penetrate into our deep diving boomers (nuclear ballistic missile submarines) and the Strategic Air Command’s underground ICBM launch complexes to psychically force (remote influence) our servicemen into pushing the wrong buttons or not pushing any buttons at all, that the military were actually trying to design and develop talisman and/or amulets to be worn by servicemen in sensitive positions to shield their minds from being remotely controlled.

However, I seriously doubt as to whether such ridiculously absurd countermeasure efforts produced any results.  This may really sound off the wall, but it’s true.

But this is what tends to occur when we’re dealing with a subject that is not fully understood, other than being aware of some of its immediate, although limited, applications.  As to whether the debunker’s efforts succeeded regarding remote viewing we may never know, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t keep attempting such similar efforts.

For far more detailed information regarding the nefarious and devious methods employed by our own intelligence community to discredit the voluminous data collected in remote viewing research, read another blog on this site entitled “Remote Viewing: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”.

Disinformation can be used in many different ways, but the two most common forms of it’s use are the following.   A significant truth is surrounded with many lies, and once said lies are uncovered and exposed as falsehoods, the truth within the middle of them is discarded and forgotten as little more than just another of the many lies. The inverse, is where a powerful lie is surrounded with considerable truths, and when the surrounding truths are confirmed as factual, the lie within the middle is also believed to be factual.

A simple way of describing the essence of the disinformational method is a line from an episode of the original Star Trek series entitled “I,  Mudd”, wherein Kirk utters the following fascinating words to an android bent on controlling and stealing the Enterprise; “Everything I’m saying to you is a lie and I’m lying to you now”.  Confusing, disturbing and certainly disorienting, but nonetheless, effective.  Precise, concise and succinct, is not it not?

Most people are probably not aware of the fact that our government’s intelligence apparatus has dramatically affected media such as newspapers,  television and radio to disinform the public regarding UFOs for many decades.  One of the best sources of information on this topic are two books written by Richard M. Dolan; UFOs and the National Security State, Vol. 1 & 2.

Apparently, the powers that be do not want the public to believe in the existence of UFOs or aliens.  The reasons for this attitude on the part of our government are numerous, and many of these are discussed in Dolans’ excellent books as well as my own.  Ever notice how at the end of almost every TV news story on UFOs there is a line thrown out by the reporter ridiculing the entire matter?

During a UFO flap that occurred during the mid-1990’s there was one report that came in of a large, glowing object hovering over someones home in the mid-west.  The object in question was probably even bigger than the house it hovered over, yet the media suggested that what people really saw was the moon or the planet Venus.  What?

If a person cannot differentiate between the moon that they’ve seen all their life or a distant light in the sky (Venus) and a very large, structured, glowing object hovering over their home, they need to be institutionalized, as they’ve lost their mind and are now psychotic.

This brings me to the most current bit of moronic, idiotic and downright historically absurd piece of disinformation I’ve ever seen regarding UFOs.   A new book written by Annie Jacobsen, Area 51,  goes into some detail discussing many previously classified military/intelligence programs at Nellis Air Force Base’s Groom Lake and Area 51.   Much of what Jacobsen writes of is very precise, historically accurate but already established within the public domain long before her book was even written , except when it speaks of UFOs and the 1947 Roswell, New Mexico crash.

The Air Force has spun numerous tall tales in their attempt to obfuscate the truth about Roswell.  At first, it was just a weather balloon.  Then, several decades later, the story was changed to something called “Project Mogul”, a high-altitude surveillance balloon used to monitor nuclear tests within the old Soviet Union before we had spy planes and satellites.

But wait, that didn’t account for the diminutive alien bodies allegedly recovered from the crash site.  The next level of disinformational spin from the Air Force was that the strangely colored bodies were nothing more than crash dummies utilized to test new types of ejection seats on supersonic aircraft.

Wait a minute, the crash dummies (full sized, not little humanoids as described by Roswell witnesses) were not even used by the Air Force until the mid-to-late 1950’s, so how could this explain the bodies recovered at Roswell in 1947?

Oh, well it seems that the people who claimed to have seen the bodies really couldn’t remember what decade they were in at the time and mistakenly thought it was 1947, when it was actually 1955-1958?  Sure, we can all lose a decade or so every now and then.  Happens every day, right?  Or is it every decade?  How stupid do these government liars really think we are?   Pretty damn stupid and ignorant apparently.

Jacobsen’s book spins the tale that the Soviets, with the help of Dr. Joseph Mengele from Nazi Germany, helped them genetically engineer some tiny, alien looking human pilots that they inserted into a makeshift spacecraft that was derived from the Horton brother’s flying wing design for the Nazi Luftwaffe at the end of WWII.

This piloted vehicle was then purposefully crashed in the New Mexican desert in the hope of triggering mass hysteria and panic across the United States similar to what occurred during Orson Well’s 1938 War of The Worlds radio broadcast.

My god, these people are working in the wrong profession, as they should really be science fiction writers within the entertainment industry.  Interesting story to say the least, but full of more holes than a large block of Swiss cheese.  Where to begin?

Let’s see, Joseph Mengele did NOT go to the Soviet Union at the end of second world war.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever suggesting that Mengele even desired to go to the Soviet Union, or that they wanted to get their hands on a real alien body that the Nazi’s might have recovered from an alleged, unconfirmed crash of a UFO in 1936 within Germany’s Black Forrest.

Had Mengele even attempted to find sanctuary there, he would be been immediately killed.  He may have come to the U.S. for a while, but clearly ended up and died in Argentina.  How could anyone, including Mengele, have genetically engineered anything back in 1947 when DNA had not even been discovered yet?  That wasn’t until the early 1960’s.

Next, the first Horton Brothers 229 flying wing crashed during one of its’ early test flights in Germany due to its port engine failure.  The debris and a second, unfinished prototype, were brought to the U.S. along with the Horton brothers after the war.

In fact, Jack Northrop’s YB-49 flying wing, so beautifully depicted in the original War of the Worlds movie (1956) was, in many ways, derived from the Horton Brothers flying wing.  Due to some poorly clarified political backstabbing during the 1950’s, Northrop’s YB-49, which first flew in 1948, was never deployed into military service even though it apparently demonstrated superior aerodynamic qualities, greater ordinance capacity and higher cruising speeds on military power.  So far, Jacobsen’s batting zero.

One last note here regarding her claims.  The configuration depicted within her book representative of the crashed Roswell craft could not have flown based on any form of jet or rocket propulsion known back in 1947.

Additionally, the description of the Roswell crash material does not even conform to any type of aerospace materials that existed then or now, except some crude forms of memory metals currently in use, but they do not possess many of the qualities described by the individuals who held remnants of the real Roswell crash.  In the end, there’s one final question that needs to be addressed regarding Jacobsen and her book.

Is Jacobsen a mole working for the U.S. government’s military/intelligence apparatus or, is she just a naive, gullible and relatively ignorant reporter who is being used by our government to propagate more erroneous myths and disinformation?

Given that she’s a writer/reporter for the Los Angeles Times newspaper, what better way to be unwittingly used than as an asset for our government as they already are familiarized with how our government’s used the media to disinform the public regarding UFOs?  Either of these possibilities are equally plausible.

However, lending support to the latter of these possibilities was the appearance a new show “Area 51 Declassified” on the National Geographic Channel last Sunday evening, for which Jacobsen was a consultant.  Given the coordination between the release of her book and the immediate broadcast of this show, strongly suggests that this entire matter is a very well orchestrated disinformational campaign put forth by factions within our government.

Reinforcing this belief was the airing of a two-hour National Geographic show entitled “When Aliens Attack”, immediately preceding the Area 51 show.  Why in the world this show was produced is really a mystery.

“When Aliens Attack” posited the unlikely scenario that the Earth will be invaded and conquered by malevolent extraterrestrial life forms in search of protein and chlorophyll, and that we have already prepared a battle plan or contingency combat strategy to deal with such an event.

For a government that’s been denying the very existence of UFOs and aliens for more than sixty years, why are they even planning for such potential hostilities?  That’s the equivalent of planning for Godzilla’s or Rodan’s hostile actions (and remember, they’re movie monsters).

Given how long it normally takes to successfully pitch, sell, produce and air a show on TV (especially on this subject), this whole matter stinks to high heaven of a well organized project to dramatically rewrite history and misdirect our attention in order to dissuade us from believing in UFOs and their occupants.  Jacobsen’s publisher has put forth an extraordinarily intense PR media campaign on this book.  I wonder who the parent company of the publisher is and if they have any asset connections to the intelligence community?  Only time will tell.

In the end, please remember that all forms of disinformation work best when used against uneducated, ignorant, gullible, naive and apathetic populations, which is primarily what many of us are, especially as related to these subject matters.

This type of disinformational program has been used quite extensively over the last six decades, but the real question here is; WHY IS IT BEING DONE NOW WITH SUCH INTENSITY?  WHAT IS IT THAT WE’RE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO NOW?