James Carrion and The Rosetta Deception

[Heidi Lemmer]

I just want to know if Fedora's still on the desk? What's the weather report Fedora?

 

[Fedora Chronicles]

Uh, the air is getting kind of thin up here... and I'm getting weak... so... very... weak...

... Can't... stand... much longer.

Although I am amazed at myself. With a little practice I learned to type with my toes while standing here....

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Wondering about this doc.....PROJECT 1947 - SECRET - GUIDED MISSILES OVER SWEDEN - 1946

 

[Randall]

Wondering about this doc.....PROJECT 1947 - SECRET - GUIDED MISSILES OVER SWEDEN - 1946

Project 1947 was one of my favorite UFO sites for documents. Now I think The Black Vault has most of the same ones. But one that is less often mentioned is The Bluebook Archive where there are many official documents. Consider the following Air Intelligence Information Report which indicates that the missile reports over Sweden were "played up" to the Americans for the purpose of garnering support for their RADAR program.

​

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Project 1947 was one of my favorite UFO sites for documents. Now I think The Black Vault has most of the same ones. But one that is less often mentioned is The Bluebook Archive where there are many official documents. Consider the following Air Intelligence Information Report which indicates that the missile reports over Sweden were "played up" to the Americans for the purpose of garnering support for their RADAR program.

​

Good catch. There was also that site I posted , Swedish archives, if I understood correctly, saved by citizens, but you have to go there to access their data ( I think).
This whole subject gets interesting because at http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/ there's some discussion about Howard McCoy being part of the foo fighter investigation, who was also part of the US ghost rocket investigation. Randle's point was that there were reports coming in before the War and he's trying to connect the dots on who was involved in those earlier cases and where were they assigned later on.
So in exploring I found http://www.project1947.com/fig/46alusna.htm. They likelihood of rockets being shot over Sweden sound right, but how does one go about looking at the reports made at the time and say, it was all fake rockets and frenzy. Dunno, I'll keep poking around.

 

[Randall]

This thread still has some potential for further discussion, so I'm going to do a bit of an about face and say that there is something I do agree with Carrion about, and that is that the absence of certain kinds of evidence in combination with the circumstances that surround that lack of evidence, can leave curious holes in a story, that when taken together in the big picture can form a pattern suggestive of an unspoken agenda. The problem of course is that such holes don't give us a clear picture and sometimes the same information can be interpreted in more than one way.

The difference between Carrion's conclusions and the so-called believers is that the believers think the pattern adds-up to non-disclosure about alien visitation, while Carrion seems to be advocating the position that it adds up to non-disclosure about classified military projects that have nothing to do with aliens. IMO both interpretations are true. There's no doubt in my mind that information about classified military projects linked to certain UFO reports has taken place. There's also no doubt in my mind that someone in the military knows alien visitation is real and there is plenty of evidence about that being kept from the public.

So it's conceivable that if there is such a deception, it was engineered to work for or against either position, and Carrion is focused mainly on one side of a double edged sword. If that's true, we might be able to learn something from Carrion about the way the disinformation he has looked into is engineered and apply that toward finding answers about the other side of the deception, the reality of alien visitation. I'm also sure that Carrion's book will end up on my bookshelf at some point, and none of my commentary is meant to discourage people from checking it out for themselves. Ufology is about putting all UFO related information into a library that can be catalogued by context and studied objectively. Personally, all commentary aside, I look forward to checking out Carrion's book at some point in the future.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

This thread still has some potential for further discussion, so I'm going to do a bit of an about face and say that there is something I do agree with Carrion about, and that is that the absence of certain kinds of evidence in combination with the circumstances that surround that lack of evidence, can leave curious holes in a story, that when taken together in the big picture can form a pattern suggestive of an unspoken agenda. The problem of course is that such holes don't give us a clear picture and sometimes the same information can be interpreted in more than one way.

The difference between Carrion's conclusions and the so-called believers is that the believers think the pattern adds-up to non-disclosure about alien visitation, while Carrion seems to be advocating the position that it adds up to non-disclosure about classified military projects that have nothing to do with aliens. IMO both interpretations are true. There's no doubt in my mind that information about classified military projects linked to certain UFO reports has taken place. There's also no doubt in my mind that someone in the military knows alien visitation is real and there is plenty of evidence about that being kept from the public.

So it's conceivable that if there is such a deception, it was engineered to work for or against either position, and Carrion is focused mainly on one side of a double edged sword. If that's true, we might be able to learn something from Carrion about the way the disinformation he has looked into is engineered and apply that toward finding answers about the other side of the deception, the reality of alien visitation. I'm also sure that Carrion's book will end up on my bookshelf at some point, and none of my commentary is meant to discourage people from checking it out for themselves. Ufology is about putting all UFO related information into a library that can be catalogued by context and studied objectively. Personally, all commentary aside, I look forward to checking out Carrion's book at some point in the future.

Agree. There's something there, although I'm confused on the "fake" rockets vs. what's reported as real rockets and the fact that the Soviets really did go through a testing period, so why not in 46? But I don't like taking a group of sightings and trying to fit them to one scenario. In my mind, that's not so easily done. Wouldn't we want the Swedish reports to accurately see what folks were reporting?
As to Mr. Carrion's intent, although I didn't mean to be rude to him, when I googled his name to learn a bit about his history, I came away with the impression that he had little belief in ET and a lot of belief in military shenanigans. I also believe the militarys around the world have played on ET vs covert operations but not broadly, at least it doesn't seem obvious to me. I also didn't like being called an armchair researcher. Although I am, it was meant to shut me up. If your audience is asking questions do you tell them to shut up until they do the research. In fact, I've read more about Ghost Rockets in the last two weeks than anything else so in essence, it's a compliment to him that I'm engaged.

 

[Randall]

I also didn't like being called an armchair researcher.

IMO so long as you're contributing something of relevance in a genuine and constructive manner that's good enough for me. Besides, somebody needs to read all the stuff all the other people who think of themselves as "researchers" publish. Where would they be without the "armchair researcher" to buy their books and listen to them promote their theories? Personally, I have the greatest appreciation for anyone who takes the time to visit my website and read my forum posts, let alone respond to them ( positively or negatively ). We can all have differences of opinion, and we can, and should, be free to discuss and debate them.

As to Mr. Carrion's intent, although I didn't mean to be rude to him, when I googled his name to learn a bit about his history, I came away with the impression that he had little belief in ET and a lot of belief in military shenanigans.

There probably have been some "military shenanigans", but they don't explain everything, and I think Carrion tended to make it sound all too easy to fake a believable UFO sighting. I don't know how anyone would fake the thing I saw, and I'd have to be a complete egomaniac to think that out of all the other UFO reports out there, I'm the only one who has seen a real one. I mean I know I've been accused of coming across a bit "high horsed" ( as one poster put it ), but I don't think I'm so bad that I'd think there are no other genuine witnesses out there who know from their experience that alien visitation is a reality.

I'm confused on the "fake" rockets vs. what's reported as real rockets and the fact that the Soviets really did go through a testing period, so why not in 46? But I don't like taking a group of sightings and trying to fit them to one scenario. In my mind, that's not so easily done.

I agree. Every sighting report should be evaluated on its own merit. One thing that also makes little sense is the whole idea of faking a UFO sighting using physical equipment that attempts to duplicate UFO behavior. Contrary to Carrion's claim, I fail to see how this could in any way be so simple. The expense would be large and making it a field operation would increase the chances of failure. If they wanted the enemy to think we had some super saucers from space, It would be much simpler to plant fake stories and let them percolate out via newspapers and UFO investigators.

Creating a group of real-life high speed unconventional objects in the hope that they would be seen by chance, like in the Kenneth Arnold case, is beyond reason. If they could actually create such secret craft, and wanted the enemy to know we had them, then why try to keep them secret at all? Why not just show them off at the local USAF air show? And if they invented space aliens as a diversion to keep people from thinking they had such secret craft, why fly them around in a zone where a major search for a downed aircraft was taking place? It makes no sense.

 

[manxman]

Well it looks like 'elvis' has left the building.

Like Heidi, i too have been looking at mr carrions background, i come away feeling he is just another of a long line, of ufological trojan horse's in the cesspit of american Ufology ..

 

[Constance]

Well it looks like 'elvis' has left the building.

Like Heidi, i too have been looking at mr carrions background, i come away feeling he is just another of a long line, of ufological trojan horse's in the cesspit of american Ufology ..

Hey buddy, you're stepping on a lot of toes and trashing 65 years' worth of vigorous research and researchers that have been essential to the development of this field.
I object.

 

[Randall]

@manxman and @Constance

You both make valid points. I think we need to recognize that within the field as a whole there will always be positives and the negatives. The challenge is to look at them objectively and catalogue them accordingly. That is the approach I'm working on with USI, and the the foundation I'm hoping to set in place for Postmodern Ufology, which is on track to come into effect around 2027. It's a more holistic approach that resolves a lot of problems.

 

[manxman]

Hey buddy, you're stepping on a lot of toes and trashing 65 years' worth of vigorous research and researchers that have been essential to the development of this field.
I object.

Sorry Constance, but that's the way i view American Ufology, however that does not mean every American researcher is responsible for the American scene.
You can thank your armed force's/alphabet soup agencie's for cesspit it has become, i just do not trust the plethora of ''EX'' government men involved and the stench they create.

It is my opinion that for year upon year of those 65 you mention, your tax dollar has funded deception by, and ridicule from, your own government dept's, in a long and concerted effort,of mis-direction, water muddying, and well poisoning, by multiple ''pretender's'' in the game.

Considering there's officially 'nothing to see here' in ufology, they have gone to a mammoth effort and expense to keep the whole obfuscation merry go around running.

 

[Constance]

Sorry Constance, but that's the way i view American Ufology, however that does not mean every American researcher is responsible for the American scene.
You can thank your armed force's/alphabet soup agencie's for cesspit it has become, i just do not trust the plethora of ''EX'' government men involved and the stench they create.

It is my opinion that for year upon year of those 65 you mention, your tax dollar has funded deception by, and ridicule from, your own government dept's, in a long and concerted effort,of mis-direction, water muddying, and well poisoning, by multiple ''pretender's'' in the game.

Considering there's officially 'nothing to see here' in ufology, they have gone to a mammoth effort and expense to keep the whole obfuscation merry go around running.

I totally agree, Manx, with everything you've said about US government and military manipulation, distortion, and suppression of ufo evidence and those who got close to it for 65 years. It's been completely outrageous. But the extent of it, for all those decades, did not prevent a great deal from being learned, reasoned through, corroborated by FOIA when possible, and made public by American ufo researchers whose work I admire and that all of us should be grateful for. It grates on me that many people here and elsewhere who speak about ufology with contempt and dismissiveness don't seem capable of recognizing the immense difficulty of researching this subject in this country, and take delight in ridiculing dedicated researchers who have devoted their lives to uncovering the reality behind the coverup. Indeed to the point of ridiculing the entire field of ufo research. As you say, Manx, the ufo coverup in the US in all its manifestations has been enormous and expensive, and it is plainly obvious that it was undertaken from 1947 to the present day for a significant reason -- that many ufos appearing in earth skies have been "not ours" and utterly beyond our technology. That apparently scares the shit out of a lot of people and inspires them to look frantically for any reassurance that it might not be true after all. It also scares the rationality out of them in my opinion.

 

[Burnt State]

Good points all around up above. But the foundation for Postmodern Ufology? I'm very curious to know what the pillars of such a paradigm would look like.