Ex-CIA chief admits to UFO disinformation

a reply to: karl 12

interesting article - thanks for posting

from the article:

Thus, we are left with five possible conclusions.

ONE: The US Government is trying to keep certain super weapon systems secret from the Soviets. In this age of advanced electronic, photographic, and other intelligence sensors , when the testing of a new system begins by any nation, the other participants in the geopolitical game soon learn of it.

TWO: The US Government, in cooperation with its allies, is playing a game with such rivals as the USSR, trying to confuse them with false reports of UFOs. The state of the art in intelligence collection and analysis, as well as science, precludes the possibility of such a ruse.

THREE: The US and its allies are attempting to keep UFOs a secret from the USSR. The Soviets, however, are as astute in space science as we are. If we know about UFOs, so do they...and so do all the technically advanced nations.

FOUR: There are no UFOs, nor have there ever been any contacts from outer space. However, the amount of circumstantial evidence to the contrary (including indications that our planet may have been visited in the distant past by extraterrestrials) argues against this conclusion--or at least for further study of the UFO phenomenon.

FIVE: There are UFOs or there have been contacts--if only signals --from outer space, but the evidence reveals the aliens are interested only in observing us. They have no hostile intentions and are no direct threat to any nation. But public knowledge of these facts could become a threat. If the existence of UFOs were to be officially confirmed, a chain reaction could be initiated that would result in the collapse of the Earth's present power structure. Thus, a secret international understanding--a conspiracy -- has been agreed to by the world powers to keep the public ignorant of and confused about contacts or visitations from beyond Earth.

i would suggest one other possible conclusion - there are ufos, and the authorities have no definitive answer as to what they are

if it is something of a 'grey' area (pardon the pun), that may be an incentive to test out various scenarios with the public - to get an idea of what the response might be, given that they were x and did y

they may also want to 'control' the situation in the sense of shaping the public perception - given the 'religious' or 'cultic' responses that appear very early on, it may have been seen as having potentially dangerous social consequences

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: mbkennel

The CIA was very interested in UFO reports because they knew that many of them were their own operations (U-2 and Corona in the early days).

I know you keep on posting this claim but it is very far from universally accepted - will you please address the points made in THIS post (even infamous UFO cynic Robert Schaffer calls the idea 'nonsense').



a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Great thread mate and I'm sure there is a lot of official secrecy and official ridicule knocking about when it comes to the UFO subject -as you know there are quite a few internal government documents from that time which show they took the UFO subject extremely seriously, this one's a good example and was sent to the Director of Central Intelligence by the Assistant Director Scientific Intelligence discussing how they're convinced there's something going on which needs immediate attention.


Other quotes:

"Maximum security exists concerning the subject of UFOs."
CIA Director, Allen Dulles, 1955.



"The Central Intelligence Agency has reviewed the current situation concerning unidentified flying objects which have created extensive speculation in the press and have been the subject of concern to Government organizations... Since 1947, approximately 2,000 official reports of sightings have been received and of these, about 20% are as yet unexplained."
"It is my view that this situation has possible implications for our national security which transcend the interests of a single service. A broader, coordinated effort should be initiated to develop a firm scientific understanding of the several phenomena which apparently are involved in these reports..." (1952 memorandum to the National Security Council.)
General Walter Bedell Smith, Director of the CIA from 1950-53

He's not exactly a UFO whistleblower per se but Victor Marchetti (once executive assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA) also makes some interesting remarks in the 'rare but largely speculative' article below entitled "How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon".

Billy Cox over at the Herald-Tribune has recently posted this 'gem of an article' in its entirety and, even in a historical context it's well worth a read as it covers lots of aspects from official /religious attitudes towards the subject, government sponsered UFO studies right through to NSA and SIGNIT reports.


(Taken from Second Look magazine, Vol. 1, No. 7 in May 1979).

Retro Friday: a blast from the past

Before blowing the whistle on America's illegal covert Cold War activities, Victor Marchetti was a 14-year CIA veteran ultimately promoted to executive assistant to The Agency's Deputy Director. After resigning in 1969, he wrote two exposes -- 1971's The Rope Dancer, and The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence in 1974. The latter, which the federal government attempted to ban from publication, was among the many slings and arrows contributing to the formation of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearings in 1975.

In 1979, Marchetti stoked yet another controversy by providing a rare if largely speculative glimpse into the mindset of The Agency's uneasy relationship with The Great Taboo. Titled "How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon," Marchetti's magazine piece took a cautious approach. "The topic was rarely discussed at internal meetings," he wrote. "It seemed to fall into the category of 'very sensitive activities,' e.g., drug and mind-control operations, domestic spying, and other illegal actions. People simply did not talk about the UFO phenomenon."

Full Sourced Article

Thank you for your participation Karl 12, I have always been a fan of your threads.

The articles and quotes that you cite are real.

The Soviet threat was a given, so it would be highly redundant that these highly placed officials would be referring to those threats.

I don't know why so many people are afraid to even discuss the ET hypothesis, they seem to come to the subject biased, which is the opposite of a true researcher or investigator.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I don't know why so many people are afraid to even discuss the ET hypothesis, they seem to come to the subject biased, which is the opposite of a true researcher or investigator.

it seems to me it's discussed endlessly on ats

there are people who say that the et hypothesis is true, those that say they don't know, and those that say it's not true

do you consider a researcher biased in favour of the et hypothesis a true researcher?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket
So when Regan said "What could be more alien to the universal aspiration of our people than war and the threat of war?” He wasn't talking about "war" or "the threat of war", he was talking specifically about aliens. So all the wars and potential wars we did have since then were actually aliens? Bin Laden was really an alien? Well I'll be a monkeys uncle. I don't mean I'm really an uncle to a monkey...no, wait...my brother did get into some crazy stuff.

When Reagan said "What could be more alien to the universal aspiration of our people than war and the threat of war?” He WAS indeed talking about "war" or "the threat of war" By ALIENS. If you have read the fore part of his speech and have known his previous talks about possible alien threats, you would have no problem of understanding this.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Of course one can perceive something in different ways though he/she just can't change a single part of the fact of that thing.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Thanks mate and there's further authenticated internal documents found in this book which also show the ETH was at least on the table when it came to official attitudes towards the subject (if you've not read it already).

Don't want to detract from the thread topic but it also looks like the European counterparts of the intelligence services were a bit perplexed around that time and there are quite a few freaky UFO incidents which don't sound like Russians to me.

"Here we had a number of object seen coming in across the North Sea on coastal radar. It looked like a Russian mistake. Jet aircraft were scrambled. The objects were travelling at quite impossible speeds like 4-5000 mph and then came to an abrupt halt near to one of these stations not very high up. Jet aircraft picked them up on aircraft radar. The objects then simply made rings round them."

Ralph Noyes,Senior Official with British Air Ministry


"During the 1955 Warsaw Pact exercises, a radar station in the area of Warsaw recognized two targets over the Gulf of Gdansk. The targets were moving at a speed of 2,300 km/h at an altitude of 20 thousand meters. In those days there was no aircraft with such performance. At one point it was noticed that the two objects did a 90 degrees turn, literally on the spot with no turning radius. This maneuver at such high speeds cannot be done. Most modern aircraft are unable to do so even today, and that was 50 years ago".

Colonel Grundmanem , Head of Poland's 'Air Traffic, Air Force and Air Defense'

a reply to: aynock

Can't disagree with anything you've posted there mate and who knows, maybe there would be disastrous social consequences (have made a thread here to prevent thread drift).

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I don't know why so many people are afraid to even discuss the ET hypothesis, they seem to come to the subject biased, which is the opposite of a true researcher or investigator.

it seems to me it's discussed endlessly on ats

there are people who say that the et hypothesis is true, those that say they don't know, and those that say it's not true

do you consider a researcher biased in favour of the et hypothesis a true researcher?

Good question. I didn't exactly say it above but I have in other posts, people who automatically rule out the ET hypothesis cannot consider themselves true researchers. Why there was even one poster who banned people (technically she can't but I acquiesced to her wishes out of respect) from mentioning ET's in relation to a topic on UFO's! That sounds like the Catholic church in the 1300's refusing to entertain arguments of heliocentrism!

So back to your question. Yes, people who rule out ET's with respect to UFO's are not true researchers or investigators, they assign the ET connection a probability of zero. The opposite and equally biased are people who equate ET and UFO's and assign it a probability of one (assuming irrefutable evidence to indicate a probability of 1 does not exist, and many on here including myself are skeptical of this assumption). However, those that only FAVOR the ET and UFO connection are assigning it a probability of greater than .5 but less than one.

So no, those that favor it I don't consider them biased, only those who assign the probability 0 or 1 unless they have irrefutable evidence either way. At this point it is only my opinion that it will be easier to find evidence pointing to a "1" probability than a "0" probability.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I don't know why so many people are afraid to even discuss the ET hypothesis, they seem to come to the subject biased, which is the opposite of a true researcher or investigator.

it seems to me it's discussed endlessly on ats

there are people who say that the et hypothesis is true, those that say they don't know, and those that say it's not true

do you consider a researcher biased in favour of the et hypothesis a true researcher?

Good question. I didn't exactly say it above but I have in other posts, people who automatically rule out the ET hypothesis cannot consider themselves true researchers. Why there was even one poster who banned people (technically she can't but I acquiesced to her wishes out of respect) from mentioning ET's in relation to a topic on UFO's! That sounds like the Catholic church in the 1300's refusing to entertain arguments of heliocentrism!

So back to your question. Yes, people who rule out ET's with respect to UFO's are not true researchers or investigators, they assign the ET connection a probability of zero. The opposite and equally biased are people who equate ET and UFO's and assign it a probability of one (assuming irrefutable evidence to indicate a probability of 1 does not exist, and many on here including myself are skeptical of this assumption). However, those that only FAVOR the ET and UFO connection are assigning it a probability of greater than .5 but less than one.

So no, those that favor it I don't consider them biased, only those who assign the probability 0 or 1 unless they have irrefutable evidence either way. At this point it is only my opinion that it will be easier to find evidence pointing to a "1" probability than a "0" probability.

Pretty sure us skeptics have been speaking English. Yet you still don't understand out very simple position.

So let me explain it again. We believe it is possible that aliens are visiting earth. But we don't believe they are.
You belive they are but have no proof whatsoever. Zero proof. That's what we say. No zero possibility

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I don't know why so many people are afraid to even discuss the ET hypothesis, they seem to come to the subject biased, which is the opposite of a true researcher or investigator.

it seems to me it's discussed endlessly on ats

there are people who say that the et hypothesis is true, those that say they don't know, and those that say it's not true

do you consider a researcher biased in favour of the et hypothesis a true researcher?

Good question. I didn't exactly say it above but I have in other posts, people who automatically rule out the ET hypothesis cannot consider themselves true researchers. Why there was even one poster who banned people (technically she can't but I acquiesced to her wishes out of respect) from mentioning ET's in relation to a topic on UFO's! That sounds like the Catholic church in the 1300's refusing to entertain arguments of heliocentrism!

So back to your question. Yes, people who rule out ET's with respect to UFO's are not true researchers or investigators, they assign the ET connection a probability of zero. The opposite and equally biased are people who equate ET and UFO's and assign it a probability of one (assuming irrefutable evidence to indicate a probability of 1 does not exist, and many on here including myself are skeptical of this assumption). However, those that only FAVOR the ET and UFO connection are assigning it a probability of greater than .5 but less than one.

So no, those that favor it I don't consider them biased, only those who assign the probability 0 or 1 unless they have irrefutable evidence either way. At this point it is only my opinion that it will be easier to find evidence pointing to a "1" probability than a "0" probability.

Pretty sure us skeptics have been speaking English. Yet you still don't understand out very simple position.

So let me explain it again. We believe it is possible that aliens are visiting earth. But we don't believe they are.
You belive they are but have no proof whatsoever. Zero proof. That's what we say. No zero possibility

Yes, I get that. Myself and the other poster were discussing the appropriate use of the word "bias" in relation to this topic; so would you say a skeptic, as opposed to someone in favor of the UFO-ET hypothesis, views the probability of the UFO-ET connection as greater than zero but less than .5 ?

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Well, for me at least, its above zero, sure. But since i dont know any variables or have any more info, i cant give a number. But i absolutely believe in alien life and the POSSIBILTY of them coming here.

I guess my point is, i don't want to read any more reports from the 50s and 60s ...when people were much more easily fooled about flashing lights in the sky or Venus, Sirius or Chinese lanterns.

Its 2014.

There is no reason anymore not to have super high res images or high def footage of any alien craft supposedly in the sky.

And when/f that footage comes out, then i will believe they are here.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Well, for me at least, its above zero, sure. But since i dont know any variables or have any more info, i cant give a number. But i absolutely believe in alien life and the POSSIBILTY of them coming here.

I guess my point is, i don't want to read any more reports from the 50s and 60s ...when people were much more easily fooled about flashing lights in the sky or Venus, Sirius or Chinese lanterns.

Its 2014.

There is no reason anymore not to have super high res images or high def footage of any alien craft supposedly in the sky.

And when/f that footage comes out, then i will believe they are here.

Good points, but many of the reports from the 50's and 60's were from highly credible and trained civilian and military pilots. I agree that we should not solely rely on these old reports, though they should not be discounted either, due to the following reason: back in the late 40's and 50's civilian and military pilots did not FEAR making a report, so we received many detailed and accurate reports.

However, from the pronouncement that accompanied the end of Project Bluebook and on, that basically there was nothing to the UFO phenomenon, these same pilots could see that their reports would not be taken seriously, so many of them from Project Bluebook to now would not bother reporting any UFO sightings. You can see that even in the recent UFO seen at O'Hare a few years ago, relatively recently, there are recordings showing that airline personnel saw something very unusual, more unusual than a hole-punch cloud (the official explanation), yet none wanted to go on the record knowing it could be bad for their careers.

With the advent of good quality smart phone cameras and YouTube there are more videos and pictures being made public, but there are more hoaxes as well. Each case should be examined on its own merits.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
so would you say a skeptic, as opposed to someone in favor of the UFO-ET hypothesis, views the probability of the UFO-ET connection as greater than zero but less than .5 ?

That question is impossible to answer. It would be a meaningless figure. How do you suggest going about determining that? What is the probability that UFOs are the creation of Rastafarian magicians who were trained by an ancient race of hominids? The probability that physical beings from outside the solar system have come here has to be very low but I don't know how one would determine what it is.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
With the advent of good quality smart phone cameras and YouTube there are more videos and pictures being made public, but there are more hoaxes as well.

I'm not seeing many (if any) new videos that seem convincing.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
so would you say a skeptic, as opposed to someone in favor of the UFO-ET hypothesis, views the probability of the UFO-ET connection as greater than zero but less than .5 ?

That question is impossible to answer. It would be a meaningless figure. How do you suggest going about determining that? What is the probability that UFOs are the creation of Rastafarian magicians who were trained by an ancient race of hominids? The probability that physical beings from outside the solar system have come here has to be very low but I don't know how one would determine what it is.

These are personal opinions of probability and not the actual probability itself, so of course the answer would vary from person to person.

My original point was that some skeptics assign the ET-UFO connection a probability of zero, they completely rule it out, and that position has less credibility than someone who assigns it a probability of 1. Given what we know, even just on ATS, even though there may be no PUBLIC evidence (of course that does not mean evidence does not exist) to back up the probability of 1, it is more likely than the probability of zero.

I think an honest researcher has to assign the ET-UFO connection a probability of greater than zero but less than one and go from there.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

My original point was that some skeptics assign the ET-UFO connection a probability of zero, they completely rule it out, and that position has less credibility than someone who assigns it a probability of 1

Anyone who assigns it a probability of 1 is asserting something they cannot prove. I don' see how that is more credible than someone who completely rules it out.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

My original point was that some skeptics assign the ET-UFO connection a probability of zero, they completely rule it out, and that position has less credibility than someone who assigns it a probability of 1

Anyone who assigns it a probability of 1 is asserting something they cannot prove. I don' see how that is more credible than someone who completely rules it out.

Just try using logic. True UFO's exist, that is unexplained aerial phenomenon where every other explanation, like weather balloons, birds, planets, meteors, aircraft, satellites, Hessdalen lights, etc have been ruled out. We are left with alternative explanations such as time travelers, other dimensional beings, extraterrestrials.

Thus the UFO-ET connection by definition has a probability greater than zero, of which one is a subset. Sure it may not be provable with PUBLICLY available info, but a one probability is a possibility. At this point, given that UFO exist, and the ET-UFO connection has not been disproven, the probability of the UFO-ET connection is not zero.

And please do not trot out that ole saw "you cannot prove a negative". UFO's are fact, their cause is unknown, not a negative.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Thus the UFO-ET connection by definition has a probability greater than zero

probability isn't relevant here - probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur

the hypothesis that some ufos are alien craft is either true or untrue

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

After reading Aynock's post I'm not sure I know what you are actually saying.

My interpretation of what you originally wrote was that you meant that someone who claims UFOs are without question ET is more credible than someone who claims UFOs are absolutely not ET.

Is that what you mean?

a reply to: karl 12

Just because a radar set indicates something is going at X km/h doesn't mean there is a physical object going at X km/h.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Im totally with you there. If the POTUS announced tomorrow that extra terrestrial' s were buzzing our skies this whole time the deniers would dismiss it and say "that does not prove aliens are here" as you may know.

You cant get through to them it is a waste of time and effort. All you can do is share the data for those receptive to it.

D.F.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

After reading Aynock's post I'm not sure I know what you are actually saying.

My interpretation of what you originally wrote was that you meant that someone who claims UFOs are without question ET is more credible than someone who claims UFOs are absolutely not ET.

Is that what you mean?

No, don't put words in my mouth.

Like I said, the UFO phenomenon is real. Intelligently controlled vehicles in many cases. Given the possibilities people have put forth, such as time travelers, ET, multi-dimensional beings, poltergeist - TO ME - given the physics involved - ET is the most probable answer.

But my point is this, until the UFO - ET connection is either proven or ruled out, a probability for it exists, be it even .000001, so at this point it is not rational or logical to completely rule it out or assign it a probability of zero. I never said those people are not credible, just not using logic.