Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Debunking Versus Counterintelligence: Reflections of a Pro-Ufologist

Expand Messages
  • mikejamieson1950
    ... is ... healthy ... people ... in ... to ... Hmm....the article below seems to suggest that ufologists are ultimately the chief gatherers of ufo
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 4, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In prepare4contact@yahoogroups.com, "Dr Michael Salla"
      <exopolitics@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Aloha Mike and Jake. I want to respond to Mike Jamieson's comment in
      > another thread:
      >
      > "Hi Jake. I was mainly trying to get the E. Institute folks
      > to rethink how they have been expending their attention and
      > energy. I smell a lot of counterproductive burning rubber....
      > Salla's "toughness", btw, seems to be a stubborness in remaining
      > decent in the face of constant one/two punches...."
      >
      > I think it pretty obvious that the field of Ufology and Exopolitics
      is
      > divided by conflicting positions over the availabe data pro or con a
      > particular case, whistleblower testimony, UFO sighting, experiencer
      > testimony, etc. These types of conflicting positions will also arise
      > in organizations such as the Exopolitics Institute. There is nothing
      > inherently bad about conflicting positions, and in fact that's
      healthy
      > since we get a chance to hear different perspectives. It's when
      people
      > resort to mud-slinging and ad hominem attacks that things get out of
      > control.
      >
      > My demenour has nothing to do with being decent or stubborn. It's
      > merely a reflection of the professional standards an academic uses
      in
      > a debate. Too bad many in the UFO field have such low professional
      > standards in conducting themselves in debates. However, this is not
      to
      > be unexpected since there is much debunking and counterintelligence
      > activity happening in the UFO field, and also being directed towards
      > the growth of exopolitics. I think this is excellently summarized in
      > an article by Richard Butler.
      >
      > Thanks to Bill Hamilton for bringing this insightful article to my
      > attention.
      >
      > In peace
      >
      > Michael S.
      >
      >
      Hmm....the article below seems to suggest that ufologists
      are ultimately the chief gatherers of ufo intelligence and
      ALSO the chief architects of counter intelligence operations.
      Intriguing.
      ____
      >
      > Source: HUFON Journal, 1992.
      >
      > Debunking Versus Counterintelligence: Reflections of a Pro-Ufologist
      >
      > by Richard D. Butler
      >
      > To the pro-ufologist, debunking and counterintelligence (CI) efforts
      > are seen as the greatest hindrances to legitimate research.
      >
      > The two terms are frequently used as synonyms. In fact, they are two
      > very distinct operations. Debunking has two sources:
      >
      > the U.S. government and civilians.
      >
      > The civilian debunkers are usually professional academics, whose
      > motivation is principally reactionary protection against a
      >
      > challenge to their world view. They see UFOs, and belief in UFOs and
      > even organized study of UFOs as a threat to their own reality
      system.
      >
      > The protective strategy is, in psychological terms, the well-known
      > process called "denial." We see it in alcoholics, and we see it in
      >
      > UFO-bashers. It is also quite an efficient way to handle complex
      data
      > and hypotheses. Simply deny it, make a joke, and move on and
      >
      > away from the challenge. Ridicule is an almost essential part of the
      > denial process. The debunker strives to convince not only his
      >
      > audience that the subject is nonsense, but he must also convince
      > himself. The self-imposed wall of denial is enforced by ridicule.
      >
      > There is nothing new about the debunking process. The history of
      > science is, in a sense, the history of debunking.
      >
      > Clearly, every important advance in science has been met with
      > ridicule. A recent example is the development of the atomic bomb.
      >
      > Top scientists were skeptical that the bomb would work. President
      > Roosevelt's military aide stated that, as an expert in
      >
      > explosives, he could assure the President that the atomic bomb would
      > never, and could never, explode! Yet in the early morning hours
      >
      > over the Trinity Site, a tiny flower of hell blossomed in the
      desert.
      > The impossible had become awesomely real.
      >
      > Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer was heard intoning, "Behold I become
      > death, a shatterer of worlds." This was an apt epitaph for the
      debunkers,
      >
      > whose psychological world was shattered. Debunking has been with us
      > since the first debunker laughed at the man who decided to
      >
      > move out of the cave. In a particularly difficult field of research
      > like ufology, the debunker must be accepted as something that
      >
      > simply comes with the territory. We must groan, but accept the old
      > saying, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
      >
      >
      >
      > The second category of debunking is the official U.S. government
      > version. This brings us into the deep waters of counterintelligence.
      >
      > CI is defined as specific and planned activities conducted to
      destroy
      > the effectiveness of a foreign intelligence operation.
      >
      > There are various sub-operations within the heading of CI. The one
      of
      > most importance to this discussion is counterespionage,
      >
      > which is those activities carried out to neutralize another
      > intelligence gathering group. Its operational parameters include
      > penetration,
      >
      > deception, and manipulation of those suspected of conducting
      espionage
      > activities. And it's all perfectly legal: presidential executive
      orders
      >
      > have made it so.
      >
      > Because these activities are necessarily covert, not much is known
      > about them by the general public.
      >
      >
      >
      > CI operations are staffed by highly skilled and dedicated personnel.
      > Their goal is to deny an enemy information which could be used to
      >
      > destroy our lives, property, and way of life. But how does the UFO
      > business tie in? National Intelligence is the key term.
      >
      > This is defined as any intelligence information produced by the CIA
      > (or other equivalent agency) that bears on the broad aspects
      >
      > of national policy and the national security of the United States.
      > This intelligence is then analyzed to determine if a threat
      condition
      > exists.
      >
      > If the answer is "yes," a Threat Analysis Report is prepared. The
      > report identifies and locates the threat, and estimates the
      potential
      > damage levels
      >
      > which the threat could inflict. The Threat Analysis Report is sent
      to
      > the National Security Council (NSC) for review. The Council, in
      turn,
      >
      > advises the President with respect to formulation and integration of
      > domestic, foreign, and military policies. Once the threat is
      confirmed
      >
      > by the NSC, various agencies will be tasked to perform both the
      > intelligence and counterintelligence functions, as well as
      accelerated
      >
      > defensive weapons programs.
      >
      >
      >
      > It is time to look at the UFO intelligence gathering program. Most
      > ufologists will probably be shocked by the nature and dimensions of
      this
      >
      > operation. Every ufologist and UFO organization in the world is an
      > overt intelligence-gathering asset of the United States. Your job
      as a
      > ufologist
      >
      > is to monitor all UFO activities, including sightings, landings and
      > abductions. This information is published, providing an intelligence
      > channel back
      >
      > into the system.
      >
      >
      >
      > The CIA has the mission of collecting all published civilian UFO
      > intelligence data. An Air Force public information release (still in
      > use) tells us
      >
      > that their investigation of UFOs ended with the deactivation of
      > Project Blue Book. Further, it says that UFO investigations have
      been
      > turned over
      >
      > to academic institutions and civilian UFO research organizations. In
      > practice, this means that information of genuine scientific value
      will
      > not be
      >
      > overlooked. In other words, Blue Book never really ended, it just
      > changed hands. And, whether you know it or not, or like it or not,
      you
      > are part
      >
      > of the intelligence-gathering network, feeding straight to the CIA's
      > UFO files. But this particular brand of intelligence data is
      perfectly
      > open to the
      >
      > public, in the form of UFO books, journals and public meetings. And
      > this presents the government with a unique problem. As a UFO
      researcher,
      >
      > you are simultaneously gathering data for the government, and trying
      > to break through the wall of secrecy to discover what the government
      >
      > knows. You are spying for them, and spying on them. By spying on
      your
      > own government and, in fact, doing so in a very aggressive manner,
      >
      > you automatically trigger the counter-intelligence machinery.
      >
      >
      >
      > The task of screwing you up, meaning the official CI operation
      against
      > ufologists, is assigned to Security and Counter-intelligence Special
      >
      > Operations departments within various intelligence agencies. Note
      the
      > three main mission criteria: (1)
      >
      > Denial to ufologists of the government's offensive and defensive
      > weapons capabilities; (2) Denial to ufologists of the government's
      > intelligence
      >
      > gathering capabilities and level of analysis; and (3) Prevention of
      > direct or indirect Psychological Warfare effect. Are these measures
      > justifiable?
      >
      > In the balance are our rights as U.S. citizens versus the
      degradation
      > of America's national security caused by release of the UFO
      information?
      >
      > With this in mind, let's review the three criteria in detail. Item
      (1)
      > is fairly obvious.
      >
      > If a potential enemy learns our weapons technology, he can develop
      > countermeasures. This in turn would render the weapons system
      useless,
      >
      > and make us vulnerable to attack. So the answer is a clear and
      > resounding "No!" to release. Item (2) is the reverse side of item
      (1).
      > We are
      >
      > gathering information in order to make the enemy's weapons
      > ineffective. Here is a purely hypothetical example. Suppose we are
      > successful
      >
      > through FOIA, or through what you must admit amounts to standard
      > espionage techniques which we call "UFO research," and discover that
      >
      > the government has photos of a UFO hovering above a submarine.
      > Moreover, the information we have obtained tells us that the
      submarine
      > is at
      >
      > a depth of 50 fathoms. We also get pictures taken at 100 and 200
      > fathoms, and quickly publish all the facts. The Soviet submarine
      > commanders
      >
      > would get the message at once. The U.S. anti-submarine surveillance
      > technology is only capable of imaging down to 200 fathoms. So they
      >
      > would design attack strategies in which they would cruise without
      > worry at depths below that level. Bad news for our side, and it puts
      >
      > ufologists on the wrong end of the logic of item (2). Item (3) is by
      > far the most complex issue.
      >
      >
      >
      > Psychological Warfare is accomplished by two main methods. First,
      > direct aggressive efforts aimed at the enemy, and second, indirect
      damage
      >
      > caused by release of information regarding the enemy's capabilities
      > and intentions. The purpose of "Psy War" is to erode the will of the
      > enemy
      >
      > nation, and it can have a devastating impact on military
      > effectiveness. A battle lost in the mind usually translates directly
      > to military defeat.
      >
      >
      >
      > But the effects of Psy War go beyond military targets. Both
      government
      > and private institutions can be severely damaged. An example is the
      >
      > stock market crash which took place just before the Gulf War. This
      is
      > minor compared with the psychological shock waves that would be
      >
      > produced by release of certain UFO information. In fact, the harm
      > would almost certainly be unprecedented in terms of damage levels,
      with
      >
      > major impact on basic religious and economic institutions.
      >
      >
      >
      > The major methods employed by UFO counterintelligence are debunking
      > and disinformation. Debunking can be as simple as using the
      technique of
      >
      > over-simplification of analysis. For example, the time-honored quick
      > answer to a UFO sighting, such as "weather balloon," or "swamp gas."
      >
      > Disinformation, however, should be our main area of concern. It
      uses a
      > technique known in the trade as "plausible denial." One way to view
      this
      >
      > is that the information is 2% truth and 98% nonsense, of some
      mixture
      > of the two, but never the whole truth. It must appear legitimate on
      >
      > the surface, but have enough bunk in it to send you off in a totally
      > wrong direction.
      >
      >
      >
      > By far the most powerful weapon in the UFO counter-intelligence
      > arsenal is the ufologists themselves. A former CI officer once
      > remarked to me
      >
      > about a prominent New York City ufologist, "If he didn't exist, we'd
      > have to invent him." There is nothing that counterintelligence
      operators
      >
      > appreciate more than a gullible ufologist i.e. born again lesbian
      > lizards from Antares, seven-foot alien cockroaches with hyperactive
      > libidos, etc.
      >
      > The result is that the credibility of the entire UFO research
      > community is debased. Little wonder that the press treats the
      subject
      > as a joke.
      >
      > That's what the CI people work so hard to accomplish. The "aliens
      are
      > eating us" crowd is the answer to the CI prayers. This brings us to
      the
      >
      > question of whether the government is justified in withholding
      certain
      > information from the public based in its psychological impact alone.
      >
      > The first NSC meeting was held in September, 1947. One of the main
      > topics is rumored to have been the retrieval of a crashed alien
      > aircraft at
      >
      > Roswell. We might know if this rumor is true, but the minutes of
      that
      > meeting have been removed by the CIA from the National Archives.
      >
      > Interestingly, they were removed in February, 1979. This is when
      > intelligence operatives discovered that a book telling the truth
      about
      > the
      >
      > Roswell crash was about to be published. It then became necessary to
      > clean up the "paper trail," among other CI moves to protect the
      >
      > Roswell secret. The NSC had to consider the Roswell UFO crash only
      > eight years after the Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" broadcast, in
      > which
      >
      > panic ensued when the public thought Martians were invading. Little
      > wonder that President Truman kept mum. Was this a sound policy?
      >
      > I believe it was in 1947, and on through to today.
      >
      >
      >
      > At least in the sense that the public was not ready for the stunning
      > revelation of aliens in our midst. But the public will never be
      ready!
      >
      > Nor is there any way to prepare the public.
      >
      >
      >
      > Therefore, further concealment is futile, as well as morally
      > unjustifiable.
      >
      >
      >
      > In terms of national security, when a government is forced to treat
      > its own populace as an enemy, then that government is already
      defeated
      >
      > and has lost its right to exist. Abductees are the only directly
      > affected portion of the population. Granted, it is a very tiny
      > fraction. But have we
      >
      > decided to write them off, to list them as an acceptable loss in
      this
      > shadowy but nevertheless very real War of the Worlds?
      >
      >
      >
      > In closing, I wish to express my sympathy for those in government
      who
      > are faced with these terrible decisions. I know you desire to do the
      > right
      >
      > thing. To my colleagues in ufology, my advice is: be very careful
      what
      > you ask for, because sometimes your wishes are granted. If your
      fervent
      >
      > wishes are granted, our whole civilization will suddenly have a new,
      > revolutionary set of ideas about who and what we are. Can you take
      >
      > responsibility for the cataclysm? Although I have used the term
      > "threat" in this discussion, it should be obvious that if the aliens
      > are truly hostile,
      >
      > we would have learned that the very, very hard way long ago.
      >
      >
      >
      > That there are great changes in store for mankind is certain. How we
      > as a people handle those changes will determine the level of loss
      to our
      >
      > social and spiritual realities. There is much to lose but equally as
      > much to gain. Or, as the alien may have said, "Lose a planet, gain a
      > galaxy."
      >
      >
      >
      > Think about it.
      >
    • mikejamieson1950
      ... wrote: Perhaps chief architects is the wrong term. (So far as CI ops.) Maybe, unwitting operatives is more accurate (so far as
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 4, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In prepare4contact@yahoogroups.com, "mikejamieson1950"
        <mikejamieson1950@y...> wrote:

        Perhaps "chief architects" is the wrong term. (So far
        as CI ops.) Maybe, unwitting operatives is more accurate
        (so far as how the article describes the dynamic).


        > --- In prepare4contact@yahoogroups.com, "Dr Michael Salla"
        > <exopolitics@y...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Aloha Mike and Jake. I want to respond to Mike Jamieson's comment
        in
        > > another thread:
        > >
        > > "Hi Jake. I was mainly trying to get the E. Institute folks
        > > to rethink how they have been expending their attention and
        > > energy. I smell a lot of counterproductive burning rubber....
        > > Salla's "toughness", btw, seems to be a stubborness in remaining
        > > decent in the face of constant one/two punches...."
        > >
        > > I think it pretty obvious that the field of Ufology and
        Exopolitics
        > is
        > > divided by conflicting positions over the availabe data pro or
        con a
        > > particular case, whistleblower testimony, UFO sighting,
        experiencer
        > > testimony, etc. These types of conflicting positions will also
        arise
        > > in organizations such as the Exopolitics Institute. There is
        nothing
        > > inherently bad about conflicting positions, and in fact that's
        > healthy
        > > since we get a chance to hear different perspectives. It's when
        > people
        > > resort to mud-slinging and ad hominem attacks that things get out
        of
        > > control.
        > >
        > > My demenour has nothing to do with being decent or stubborn. It's
        > > merely a reflection of the professional standards an academic
        uses
        > in
        > > a debate. Too bad many in the UFO field have such low professional
        > > standards in conducting themselves in debates. However, this is
        not
        > to
        > > be unexpected since there is much debunking and
        counterintelligence
        > > activity happening in the UFO field, and also being directed
        towards
        > > the growth of exopolitics. I think this is excellently summarized
        in
        > > an article by Richard Butler.
        > >
        > > Thanks to Bill Hamilton for bringing this insightful article to my
        > > attention.
        > >
        > > In peace
        > >
        > > Michael S.
        > >
        > >
        > Hmm....the article below seems to suggest that ufologists
        > are ultimately the chief gatherers of ufo intelligence and
        > ALSO the chief architects of counter intelligence operations.
        > Intriguing.
        > ____
        > >
        > > Source: HUFON Journal, 1992.
        > >
        > > Debunking Versus Counterintelligence: Reflections of a Pro-
        Ufologist
        > >
        > > by Richard D. Butler
        > >
        > > To the pro-ufologist, debunking and counterintelligence (CI)
        efforts
        > > are seen as the greatest hindrances to legitimate research.
        > >
        > > The two terms are frequently used as synonyms. In fact, they are
        two
        > > very distinct operations. Debunking has two sources:
        > >
        > > the U.S. government and civilians.
        > >
        > > The civilian debunkers are usually professional academics, whose
        > > motivation is principally reactionary protection against a
        > >
        > > challenge to their world view. They see UFOs, and belief in UFOs
        and
        > > even organized study of UFOs as a threat to their own reality
        > system.
        > >
        > > The protective strategy is, in psychological terms, the well-known
        > > process called "denial." We see it in alcoholics, and we see it in
        > >
        > > UFO-bashers. It is also quite an efficient way to handle complex
        > data
        > > and hypotheses. Simply deny it, make a joke, and move on and
        > >
        > > away from the challenge. Ridicule is an almost essential part of
        the
        > > denial process. The debunker strives to convince not only his
        > >
        > > audience that the subject is nonsense, but he must also convince
        > > himself. The self-imposed wall of denial is enforced by ridicule.
        > >
        > > There is nothing new about the debunking process. The history of
        > > science is, in a sense, the history of debunking.
        > >
        > > Clearly, every important advance in science has been met with
        > > ridicule. A recent example is the development of the atomic bomb.
        > >
        > > Top scientists were skeptical that the bomb would work. President
        > > Roosevelt's military aide stated that, as an expert in
        > >
        > > explosives, he could assure the President that the atomic bomb
        would
        > > never, and could never, explode! Yet in the early morning hours
        > >
        > > over the Trinity Site, a tiny flower of hell blossomed in the
        > desert.
        > > The impossible had become awesomely real.
        > >
        > > Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer was heard intoning, "Behold I
        become
        > > death, a shatterer of worlds." This was an apt epitaph for the
        > debunkers,
        > >
        > > whose psychological world was shattered. Debunking has been with
        us
        > > since the first debunker laughed at the man who decided to
        > >
        > > move out of the cave. In a particularly difficult field of
        research
        > > like ufology, the debunker must be accepted as something that
        > >
        > > simply comes with the territory. We must groan, but accept the old
        > > saying, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The second category of debunking is the official U.S. government
        > > version. This brings us into the deep waters of
        counterintelligence.
        > >
        > > CI is defined as specific and planned activities conducted to
        > destroy
        > > the effectiveness of a foreign intelligence operation.
        > >
        > > There are various sub-operations within the heading of CI. The
        one
        > of
        > > most importance to this discussion is counterespionage,
        > >
        > > which is those activities carried out to neutralize another
        > > intelligence gathering group. Its operational parameters include
        > > penetration,
        > >
        > > deception, and manipulation of those suspected of conducting
        > espionage
        > > activities. And it's all perfectly legal: presidential executive
        > orders
        > >
        > > have made it so.
        > >
        > > Because these activities are necessarily covert, not much is known
        > > about them by the general public.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > CI operations are staffed by highly skilled and dedicated
        personnel.
        > > Their goal is to deny an enemy information which could be used to
        > >
        > > destroy our lives, property, and way of life. But how does the UFO
        > > business tie in? National Intelligence is the key term.
        > >
        > > This is defined as any intelligence information produced by the
        CIA
        > > (or other equivalent agency) that bears on the broad aspects
        > >
        > > of national policy and the national security of the United States.
        > > This intelligence is then analyzed to determine if a threat
        > condition
        > > exists.
        > >
        > > If the answer is "yes," a Threat Analysis Report is prepared. The
        > > report identifies and locates the threat, and estimates the
        > potential
        > > damage levels
        > >
        > > which the threat could inflict. The Threat Analysis Report is
        sent
        > to
        > > the National Security Council (NSC) for review. The Council, in
        > turn,
        > >
        > > advises the President with respect to formulation and integration
        of
        > > domestic, foreign, and military policies. Once the threat is
        > confirmed
        > >
        > > by the NSC, various agencies will be tasked to perform both the
        > > intelligence and counterintelligence functions, as well as
        > accelerated
        > >
        > > defensive weapons programs.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > It is time to look at the UFO intelligence gathering program. Most
        > > ufologists will probably be shocked by the nature and dimensions
        of
        > this
        > >
        > > operation. Every ufologist and UFO organization in the world is an
        > > overt intelligence-gathering asset of the United States. Your job
        > as a
        > > ufologist
        > >
        > > is to monitor all UFO activities, including sightings, landings
        and
        > > abductions. This information is published, providing an
        intelligence
        > > channel back
        > >
        > > into the system.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The CIA has the mission of collecting all published civilian UFO
        > > intelligence data. An Air Force public information release (still
        in
        > > use) tells us
        > >
        > > that their investigation of UFOs ended with the deactivation of
        > > Project Blue Book. Further, it says that UFO investigations have
        > been
        > > turned over
        > >
        > > to academic institutions and civilian UFO research organizations.
        In
        > > practice, this means that information of genuine scientific value
        > will
        > > not be
        > >
        > > overlooked. In other words, Blue Book never really ended, it just
        > > changed hands. And, whether you know it or not, or like it or
        not,
        > you
        > > are part
        > >
        > > of the intelligence-gathering network, feeding straight to the
        CIA's
        > > UFO files. But this particular brand of intelligence data is
        > perfectly
        > > open to the
        > >
        > > public, in the form of UFO books, journals and public meetings.
        And
        > > this presents the government with a unique problem. As a UFO
        > researcher,
        > >
        > > you are simultaneously gathering data for the government, and
        trying
        > > to break through the wall of secrecy to discover what the
        government
        > >
        > > knows. You are spying for them, and spying on them. By spying on
        > your
        > > own government and, in fact, doing so in a very aggressive manner,
        > >
        > > you automatically trigger the counter-intelligence machinery.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The task of screwing you up, meaning the official CI operation
        > against
        > > ufologists, is assigned to Security and Counter-intelligence
        Special
        > >
        > > Operations departments within various intelligence agencies. Note
        > the
        > > three main mission criteria: (1)
        > >
        > > Denial to ufologists of the government's offensive and defensive
        > > weapons capabilities; (2) Denial to ufologists of the government's
        > > intelligence
        > >
        > > gathering capabilities and level of analysis; and (3) Prevention
        of
        > > direct or indirect Psychological Warfare effect. Are these
        measures
        > > justifiable?
        > >
        > > In the balance are our rights as U.S. citizens versus the
        > degradation
        > > of America's national security caused by release of the UFO
        > information?
        > >
        > > With this in mind, let's review the three criteria in detail.
        Item
        > (1)
        > > is fairly obvious.
        > >
        > > If a potential enemy learns our weapons technology, he can develop
        > > countermeasures. This in turn would render the weapons system
        > useless,
        > >
        > > and make us vulnerable to attack. So the answer is a clear and
        > > resounding "No!" to release. Item (2) is the reverse side of item
        > (1).
        > > We are
        > >
        > > gathering information in order to make the enemy's weapons
        > > ineffective. Here is a purely hypothetical example. Suppose we are
        > > successful
        > >
        > > through FOIA, or through what you must admit amounts to standard
        > > espionage techniques which we call "UFO research," and discover
        that
        > >
        > > the government has photos of a UFO hovering above a submarine.
        > > Moreover, the information we have obtained tells us that the
        > submarine
        > > is at
        > >
        > > a depth of 50 fathoms. We also get pictures taken at 100 and 200
        > > fathoms, and quickly publish all the facts. The Soviet submarine
        > > commanders
        > >
        > > would get the message at once. The U.S. anti-submarine
        surveillance
        > > technology is only capable of imaging down to 200 fathoms. So they
        > >
        > > would design attack strategies in which they would cruise without
        > > worry at depths below that level. Bad news for our side, and it
        puts
        > >
        > > ufologists on the wrong end of the logic of item (2). Item (3) is
        by
        > > far the most complex issue.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Psychological Warfare is accomplished by two main methods. First,
        > > direct aggressive efforts aimed at the enemy, and second,
        indirect
        > damage
        > >
        > > caused by release of information regarding the enemy's
        capabilities
        > > and intentions. The purpose of "Psy War" is to erode the will of
        the
        > > enemy
        > >
        > > nation, and it can have a devastating impact on military
        > > effectiveness. A battle lost in the mind usually translates
        directly
        > > to military defeat.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > But the effects of Psy War go beyond military targets. Both
        > government
        > > and private institutions can be severely damaged. An example is
        the
        > >
        > > stock market crash which took place just before the Gulf War.
        This
        > is
        > > minor compared with the psychological shock waves that would be
        > >
        > > produced by release of certain UFO information. In fact, the harm
        > > would almost certainly be unprecedented in terms of damage
        levels,
        > with
        > >
        > > major impact on basic religious and economic institutions.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The major methods employed by UFO counterintelligence are
        debunking
        > > and disinformation. Debunking can be as simple as using the
        > technique of
        > >
        > > over-simplification of analysis. For example, the time-honored
        quick
        > > answer to a UFO sighting, such as "weather balloon," or "swamp
        gas."
        > >
        > > Disinformation, however, should be our main area of concern. It
        > uses a
        > > technique known in the trade as "plausible denial." One way to
        view
        > this
        > >
        > > is that the information is 2% truth and 98% nonsense, of some
        > mixture
        > > of the two, but never the whole truth. It must appear legitimate
        on
        > >
        > > the surface, but have enough bunk in it to send you off in a
        totally
        > > wrong direction.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > By far the most powerful weapon in the UFO counter-intelligence
        > > arsenal is the ufologists themselves. A former CI officer once
        > > remarked to me
        > >
        > > about a prominent New York City ufologist, "If he didn't exist,
        we'd
        > > have to invent him." There is nothing that counterintelligence
        > operators
        > >
        > > appreciate more than a gullible ufologist i.e. born again lesbian
        > > lizards from Antares, seven-foot alien cockroaches with
        hyperactive
        > > libidos, etc.
        > >
        > > The result is that the credibility of the entire UFO research
        > > community is debased. Little wonder that the press treats the
        > subject
        > > as a joke.
        > >
        > > That's what the CI people work so hard to accomplish. The "aliens
        > are
        > > eating us" crowd is the answer to the CI prayers. This brings us
        to
        > the
        > >
        > > question of whether the government is justified in withholding
        > certain
        > > information from the public based in its psychological impact
        alone.
        > >
        > > The first NSC meeting was held in September, 1947. One of the main
        > > topics is rumored to have been the retrieval of a crashed alien
        > > aircraft at
        > >
        > > Roswell. We might know if this rumor is true, but the minutes of
        > that
        > > meeting have been removed by the CIA from the National Archives.
        > >
        > > Interestingly, they were removed in February, 1979. This is when
        > > intelligence operatives discovered that a book telling the truth
        > about
        > > the
        > >
        > > Roswell crash was about to be published. It then became necessary
        to
        > > clean up the "paper trail," among other CI moves to protect the
        > >
        > > Roswell secret. The NSC had to consider the Roswell UFO crash only
        > > eight years after the Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" broadcast,
        in
        > > which
        > >
        > > panic ensued when the public thought Martians were invading.
        Little
        > > wonder that President Truman kept mum. Was this a sound policy?
        > >
        > > I believe it was in 1947, and on through to today.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > At least in the sense that the public was not ready for the
        stunning
        > > revelation of aliens in our midst. But the public will never be
        > ready!
        > >
        > > Nor is there any way to prepare the public.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Therefore, further concealment is futile, as well as morally
        > > unjustifiable.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > In terms of national security, when a government is forced to
        treat
        > > its own populace as an enemy, then that government is already
        > defeated
        > >
        > > and has lost its right to exist. Abductees are the only directly
        > > affected portion of the population. Granted, it is a very tiny
        > > fraction. But have we
        > >
        > > decided to write them off, to list them as an acceptable loss in
        > this
        > > shadowy but nevertheless very real War of the Worlds?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > In closing, I wish to express my sympathy for those in government
        > who
        > > are faced with these terrible decisions. I know you desire to do
        the
        > > right
        > >
        > > thing. To my colleagues in ufology, my advice is: be very careful
        > what
        > > you ask for, because sometimes your wishes are granted. If your
        > fervent
        > >
        > > wishes are granted, our whole civilization will suddenly have a
        new,
        > > revolutionary set of ideas about who and what we are. Can you take
        > >
        > > responsibility for the cataclysm? Although I have used the term
        > > "threat" in this discussion, it should be obvious that if the
        aliens
        > > are truly hostile,
        > >
        > > we would have learned that the very, very hard way long ago.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > That there are great changes in store for mankind is certain. How
        we
        > > as a people handle those changes will determine the level of loss
        > to our
        > >
        > > social and spiritual realities. There is much to lose but equally
        as
        > > much to gain. Or, as the alien may have said, "Lose a planet,
        gain a
        > > galaxy."
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Think about it.
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.