I want to discuss the Chase Brandon story
so much focused on what he claims to have seen in the so called "Roswell box" at the CIA, or Roswell itself, but rather on his motivations because I
suspect there might be something worthy of analysis there.
Chase Brandon is a 35 year veteran of the CIA. He worked in the Clandestine Service for 25 years, and then served as Public Affairs spokesman, and
finally as "the CIA's first-ever official liaison to the entertainment and publication industries." His work at the CIA obviously required him to be
knowledgeable about a wide range of espionage techniques. In fact, according to his bio
Brandon even served as "an instructor in tactical paramilitary and espionage tradecraft disciplines at secret CIA training camps."
There is also indication that he is currently employed as a senior consultant at the intelligence arm of one of the biggest military contractors in
In other words, and if his bio is to be trusted, Brandon is a real spy, not just some asset to be easily manipulated by the Agency.
Why is this relevant? Well, some have suggested this "Roswell box" might have been some sort of honeypot (of disinformation) to weed out unreliable
agents, incapable of keeping secrets. I find this unlikely for two reasons: (1) considering his expertise and experience it's doubtful he would have
been so easily fooled by a box of documents and photographs, and (2) if it was part of a plan to catch unreliable agents, why is he still being
allowed to talk about it?
The CIA had proof Brandon was unreliable after the first time he talked about the "Roswell box." He chose Coast to Coast for his first
to talk about the book and the "Roswell box," a notorious and very visible venue.
Since then he hasn't stopped talking to the media and appearing on even more radio shows and podcasts. Why allow a former agent to keep calling
attention to the subject and implicating the CIA as having knowledge of UFOs and Roswell, whether real or fabricated?
The Agency has responded to at least one inquiry about Brandon and his Roswell claims and
with its historians having "found
nothing in the Agency's holdings to corroborate Mr. Brandon's specific claims."
There is no doubt the Agency is aware of his claims and where he allegedly got the information.
Additionally, there's the fact that he is selling a book, ironically about a CIA agent who uncovers information about UFOs, and more specifically
Roswell. Why is the CIA seemingly okay with a former agent using the Agency's name to sell books? And not only using the CIA's name, but either
making up stuff about what the Agency supposedly knows about Roswell — according to its official response — or, even worse, having disclosed
sensitive CIA information.
Despite all this, according to the latest interview (pt. 1
) I've listened to, he claims no one in CIA contacted him or told him to stop
Why would this 30+ year high ranking CIA veteran jeopardise his pension and place in the Agency's history in order to sell a few books? My suspicion
is that he wouldn't. And he isn't. I suspect the CIA, despite publicly saying Brandon's claims are unsubstantiated, is okay with his actions. Perhaps
even suggested he do what he's doing.
I suspect there might be an answer to this somewhere in the "core message" he is disseminating, and the CIA's actions, or inactions.
On all the shows I've listened to him talk he has always emphasized 3 points: (1) Roswell happened and it wasn't human in origin, (2) some other
government agency or agencies, not the CIA, back then decided not to share this information for whatever reason, and (3) the CIA is really great and
the people in it are professional and patriotic hard working folks. This is what I think Brandon's "core message" is. And for whatever reason he,
and maybe the CIA, want us to believe that message.
Is this just some guy trying to sell books, or is there something more to his actions? And if so, what?
Share your thoughts, but please be civil and stay on topic.
PS: Forgot to mention that I believe 95-99% of what Brandon claims and wrote is in all likelihood disinformation.
edit on 26-8-2012 by Quaesitor because: (no reason given)