It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFOlogists and N.O.C.s

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Can a UFOlogist be a NOC agent for the CIA? I was in the military, and experienced a UFO government cover up type of ordeal, (No, I do not have the Big Answer as to what UFOs are, so don't ask) and for years, different 'Ologists treated me like I was a leper (lepper, whatever) and that goes for all my hard documentation and FOIA documentation. One particular UFO-Government Cover Up-purveyor, spoke to me like I was some kind of criminal, after recieving and viewing my BEST compilation of documentation dossier to him.




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Humint comes in many flavours. You have your handlers, you have your sources, you have your deep cover. If an intelligence organization wanted to operate inside ufology, why bother trying to inject their own man. Turn one thats already established, easily enough done, and let them do the work for you. Your handler manages and cleans the info from debrief, then you give the turned source a few tid bits to release, some real, some fabricated. You track the dissemination, map the personal connections through various means like canary traps.

If something big happens, then only if required, the turned source may start introducing his "new" friend and colleague to his other friends and colleagues.

Mr Smith.

Mr Smith is a plant(watered and fertilized), has done alot of research, and your turned source has just "validated" him and vouched for him to his community. He gives your operations an extra dimension if required. Threat Analysis. Which is hard to do from untrained sources only, you need a man on the ground for this in most cases.

Has this been going on? Most certainly. I dont think its even a question.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Gaderel, thanks for the -most-intriguing- reply. I have always wondered about This One Ufologist (I wont name just now) who has an extensive ivy league educational background PERFECT for CIA employment. He has studied Soviet Cold War Era Politics, History, and other 'spooky' sounding things at like, Oxford, no-the-hey, and has no discernable day job today, but somehow has the $$$$ to gadfly all over the US almost every week, from coast-to-coast, to lecture about flying saucers and the dark-national-security-state conspiracy at alien festivals, while raising a young family and having a house. EVERYONE in Ufoology (EXCEPT ME) regards him as a hero, WITHOUT raising the questions I have. Last night, I saw on The Discovery Channel, (about the 'UFO' Nazi-scientist connection) they showed that the CIA CAME OUT with admission to having deliberately promoted 'UFOs-as-aliens' to Ufoology, in order to protect their exotic area 51 experiments that came from Nazi scientist design, NOT "aliens".



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by saucerer
 


I cant really comment on another persons finances, but do remember alot of speaking appointments do offer a gratuity to their guest speakers. There are many revenue streams one can tap into that dont necessarily appear obvious from the outside.

As to the CIA purposefully promoting the UFO-EBE link just to hide terrestrial prototypes, I am betting the reality is far more complex.

Remember how the system of espionage works. Its compartmentalized, broken up into various teams, special projects, and operations.

A Team that report to a single project are told one thing, another team is told something entirely different and operates on an entirely different premise. Another team again, might be told nothing and just be tasked to perform certain operations. Each have been told a seperate set of circumstances that interlock with their operation and how they are expected to perform.

So Source X from Team A says "We released fake info to hide area 51 projects"

Source Y from Team B says "We have been collecting radar data for years but have never encountered an EBE, and I have never heard of Team A."

Source Z from Team C says "Of course we have made contact, Team A and Team B are just a smokescreen."

Source V from Team D says "Swamp Gas!"

Each operate independantly, and depending on their need to know, are, or are not aware of other teams around them. And when they speak, they may or may not be telling the truth, depending if what they have been told in the first place is the truth. We humans can be very trusting.

The web gets very complex, because even the players in the game, dont know the full story, and operate under what they have been told or witness.

A tuna can be forgiven for thinking the world is made completely of water and other fish, until he ends up in a can.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Many UFOlogists are motivated these days by the boom in Sci-Fi related materials.
It's one of the leading genres in film, books, and other forms of coverage. With the gov't branching into hoax efforts. Like the ever popular under-water UFO's off of the Nova Scotia coast. As well as statements of the US's biggest, Roswell. With officials releasing carefully coordinated revamped documents to discourage those who have genuine interest, but most importantly, what you're detecting is those who stand in opposition to such notions.

The network you're recognizing utilizes discrediting to attract those who are like-minded in an order of suppression. Many theorists conject should other life forms present themselves where it could no longer be readily denied, that some would seek leadership, influence from foreign, non-sovereign sources. This is bad for them. As, there web of deceit is a fragile one. And, if outright resistance were to be acknowledged, it could start a wave effect. Toppling the current order of things.

It would seem right now, as I see to it, that they cover loosely the after shock. And, rely heavily on dimwitted dullards who not only like being led like stock, but even seem to enjoy profiting through ignorance.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I have evoked some impressively intelligent interesting reply'ers (you'all above) in my topic, here.
I don't know if you are Spooks, (are you?) but you sure sound like you know the counterintelligence world.
I would like to tell you what happened to me in the AirForce, and glean your opinion on it. It is mysterious to me, to this day, from when it occurred 26 years ago.
I was a young new Airman who was clearanced TS/NATO/CRYPTO and put to work in a place -just like- the one in that 1985 movie starring Sean Penn and Tim Hutton, called 'The Falcon And The Snowman' at (the now infamous because of Area 51) Nellis. Another young Airman who conversed with me about UFOs because we had an interest in it, and saw occasional mentions of 'UFOBs' in the teletypes, had unauthorizedly 'borrowed' a third carbon copy of one of those, and brought it to my apartment off base, in 'North Las Vegas'.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
< CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST.

I did NOT request such a drastically illegal action from that Airman. It came as a surprise and shock to me, when he showed up at my door with the thing. UNFORTUNATELY, I asked if he'd like to leave it with me, so that I could visually take in every little detail.
I am trying to condense this story, by the way.
Eventually, the Las Vegas FBI and USAFOSI investigated me like I was an Aldrich Aimes or John Walker, etc., with polygraphs and interrogations often, for a span of nearly 7 months.
EVEN THOUGH,
They told me the document was a "hoax" created by the other Airman.

Well guys, I'm not finished here, but I have to leave this computer now. I will continue with the story when I return to it, next time.

To be continued.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by saucerer
I don't know if you are Spooks, (are you?) but you sure sound like you know the counterintelligence world.


I can make no comment on the possibility of confirming or denying the essence of your question at this time, but may deny or confirm the possibility of such comments on denial and confirmation in the future, however I can positively state that I have no comment on deniability of the confirmation in the interim in regards to your inquiry.

I am glad we have had this opportunity to communicate.




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
UNCLASSIFIED !

Gaderel, per your immediately previous post, please be apprised that, it would greatly behoove you to be advised that, the author of this telex, being 'saucerer', (aforementioned and said target subject of my own summarized and somewhat redacted report on myself), dually affirms and informs that, it is nice to have the chance to communicate with you here, as well.

Continued from previous. ( CLASSIFIED !)
The trouble I was in, for that nearly 7 months, finally came to an end, not with a bang or whimper, just a poof. After it all wound down and died, it's as if it all never happened. I was put into a desk clerk job that was NOT intel-work related. My new co-workers merely saw me as someone who went and changed my 'AFSC', (or, 'Career Field').



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by saucerer
< CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST.

I did NOT request such a drastically illegal action from that Airman. It came as a surprise and shock to me, when he showed up at my door with the thing. UNFORTUNATELY, I asked if he'd like to leave it with me, so that I could visually take in every little detail.
I am trying to condense this story, by the way.
Eventually, the Las Vegas FBI and USAFOSI investigated me like I was an Aldrich Aimes or John Walker, etc., with polygraphs and interrogations often, for a span of nearly 7 months.
EVEN THOUGH,
They told me the document was a "hoax" created by the other Airman.

Well guys, I'm not finished here, but I have to leave this computer now. I will continue with the story when I return to it, next time.

To be continued.


In ironic, erroneous fashion: to distinguish from real (at one time) and hoax is whether or not intelligence says fake/fiction or disregard.
It's been my experience hoaxes are created in regards to actual event. To provide distraction from the event. If they say it's a hoax, and drop it, it's likely not the case often.

I've seen approximately 2 dozen occurrences were the actual data is not reiterated; however, hoaxes follow at about 2 month intervals. And, are all too common. The fake data is propagated so as to incur the curious. In a dismal, coincidental spiral of "forget it".
"They" wish to promote what they want you to see. This is the mind-set.
Whenever there's a real occurrence, it's quite distinct. With the expected fear reaction. Which is how you may often determine real from fake. If comm's are harried, and there's a lot of induced silence while cowardly actions can be better concealed, then it's likely real.

If you could, as is becoming common these days, locate the freq's of local Police/Fire/Ambulance during the interval of the event; you may better determine its validity.
It's very common for those whom hide facts for their own interest to misgivingly leave this tell-tale evidence. Because it better enhances future response.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Hi eyecatching. I think I will describe the UFO event on 'my' teletype document, and see what you think. First of all, it referenced deep space tracking, extra-solar system capability, which existence I'm not aware of, in circa Nineteen eighty one. NORAD is following these "objects" (at mach [ sixteen or twenty six,] can't recall), which enter near-earth orbit. Three of those break off from the "cluster", and enter the Soviet Union. AWACS are on the trail of this. They then go into Moscow area, and hover around there, for about an hour. This report is classified properly at top and bottom, precicely thusly: TOP SECRET/FOR OFFICIAL/EYES ONLY. For many years, that classification made me consider the "hoax" likelyness, because I always ONLY knew of, FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Somewhat recently, I googled FOUO. VERY interesting! It's a "Department Of Defense (i.e., military, not civillian) phrase or acronym, not subject to the Freedom Of Information Act". I also read some where, that neither is NORAD. And EYES ONLY can be added to different things. (Hence, "FOR MAJESTIC EYES ONLY", or "FOR THE PRESIDENT'S EYES ONLY", etc.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join