James Carrion, "The Rosetta Deception," July 20, 2014

[Burnt State]

My intel experience as a signals intelligence analyst trained me to see the signal in the noise...what intrigued me about Ufology was so much noise and little to no signal...

Care to put some numbers on that ratio?

Why do so many educated people get lost in this subject? After all, we don't have leprechaun conventions like there are UFO conventions...the more I researched the more I noticed the human hand of deception. This more than anything launched me on my journey to study the early days of the modern UFO era...

Do I detect a note of disdain?

You know I found only 41 references to leprechauns on this forum's website, but countless references to ufo's with some very decent educated discussion. In the pantheon of mysterious strange creatures, nothing beats an off-worldly one. But here's some solace. Most educated folk do often arrive at recognizing deception as the core feature of the phenomenon in all its robust expressions. Intel deceives. Hoaxers deviece. Debunkers deceive. Researchers deceive. UFO's deceive.

And doesn't everyone want to know the magician's secrets? So some will explain away the mystery by researching historical tangents, draw lines between mirage men of many eras, and others remain tangled in certain cases here and there.

 

[junius]

Uh, it just surfaced in my book...not all secrets needs to come from within the intelligence community...and this was one tightly held secret....one that spawned an entire mythology and a thousand books and web sites like this one...

Mmm. Are you suggesting you are a kind of semi official conduit for the official and true version of events or - and I have to admit you make a strong case, is the book a description of your own hypothesis? There is a difference Mr Carrion.

 

[James Carrion]

Mmm. Are you suggesting you are a kind of semi official conduit for the official and true version of events or - and I have to admit you make a strong case, is the book a description of your own hypothesis? There is a difference Mr Carrion.

Not at all. It is a theory backed up by evidence. The challenge to others is to disprove it with THEIR evidence. You suggested that secrets eventually get out...I suggest not always by the ones holding them.. I doubt we would know today about the FBI's COINTELPRO if not for the burglary of the FBI office that documented the program.

 

[Bananas]

How could anyone who doesn't know the secrets possibly know what secrets don't get exposed? I mean, we know the governments of the world keep secrets, because sometimes they do get out, but I'd wager there are more secrets we *don't* know about than we do know about. A lot of these secrets haven't come out because someone leaked them, but because they've been declassified and if you didn't know about it before it was declassified, then OBVIOUSLY the secret was kept until it was no longer deemed nescessary.

 

[Burnt State]

And yet we spend an inordinate amount of time guessing at secrets we don't have a single clue about. We've always lived in strange societies where elected leaders keep secrets for the benefit of the rest of us. We call this whole blind faith process where the electorate is kept ignorant and encouraged to believe in the propaganda of the day democracy.

 

[junius]

Not at all. It is a theory backed up by evidence. The challenge to others is to disprove it with THEIR evidence. You suggested that secrets eventually get out...I suggest not always by the ones holding them.. I doubt we would know today about the FBI's COINTELPRO if not for the burglary of the FBI office that documented the program.

Yes Mr Carrion, I do like your approach. You have created a hypothesis, supported by sourced material and have published it with the challenge for others to conduct their own research to test your hypothesis. Good show Sir and over to others now I guess. With an open mind. Junius.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well, I had hoped to set up a debate on The Paracast between Carrion and Friedman. Stan has read the book, and was ready, but James wants to do it in a public auditorium setting (such as a MUFON conference) rather than on a radio show, so be it. I think reaching over 100,000 people is better than 400 or 500, but that's how things are, and he's entitled to his point of view.

Here is his blog expressing his full opinion on the matter of a debate; he also offers a link to a free online copy of the book:

Follow The Magic Thread

Meanwhile, after reading the book, Stan sent the following comment that he asked me to post:

I must give James Carrion credit for suckering me into buying his book "The Rosetta Deception". I actually did read it. At least I was able to purchase a second-hand copy from Amazon and it is short, only 174 pages. He even provides fictional conversations between Joseph Stalin and Lavrenti Beria (KGB), also between Stalin and his son. He talks a great deal about the Ghost Rockets observed over Sweden in 1946, but provides no evidence at all that the postwar UFO fuss was solely due to a disinformation effort or that the highly touted by him Project Seal was of any great importance. Its final report was only SECRET, not top secret, and only 138 pages long. And fewer that 150 people worked on it. Hardly a big deal at all. I can see why he would want the debate to avoid Roswell and Kenneth Arnold and a host of other items. He provides no evidence there was a Rosetta anything. Of course he doesn't mention the Foo Fighters seen during the war by pilots on both sides. At least I won't have to reread the book.

Stan​

 

[junius]

Well, I had hoped to set up a debate on The Paracast between Carrion and Friedman. Stan has read the book, and was ready, but James wants to do it in a public auditorium setting (such as a MUFON conference) rather than on a radio show, so be it. I think reaching over 100,000 people is better than 400 or 500, but that's how things are, and he's entitled to his point of view.

Here is his blog expressing his full opinion on the matter of a debate; he also offers a link to a free online copy of the book:

Follow The Magic Thread

Meanwhile, after reading the book, Stan sent the following comment that he asked me to post:

I must give James Carrion credit for suckering me into buying his book "The Rosetta Deception". I actually did read it. At least I was able to purchase a second-hand copy from Amazon and it is short, only 174 pages. He even provides fictional conversations between Joseph Stalin and Lavrenti Beria (KGB), also between Stalin and his son. He talks a great deal about the Ghost Rockets observed over Sweden in 1946, but provides no evidence at all that the postwar UFO fuss was solely due to a disinformation effort or that the highly touted by him Project Seal was of any great importance. Its final report was only SECRET, not top secret, and only 138 pages long. And fewer that 150 people worked on it. Hardly a big deal at all. I can see why he would want the debate to avoid Roswell and Kenneth Arnold and a host of other items. He provides no evidence there was a Rosetta anything. Of course he doesn't mention the Foo Fighters seen during the war by pilots on both sides. At least I won't have to reread the book.

Stan​

I thought Mr Carrion's book was well sourced considering his hypothesis. He does speculate on conversations between Stalin et al, but Stan's response, after reading the book seems very broad brush. I would expect Stan to focus on specific points contained in the book with counter arguments (with evidence or decent source material) to test Mr Carrion's hypothesis. Stan referred to the ghost rocket theory as 'Baloney', why is it baloney Mr Friedman. Play the ball...

 

[James Carrion]

Well, I had hoped to set up a debate on The Paracast between Carrion and Friedman. Stan has read the book, and was ready, but James wants to do it in a public auditorium setting (such as a MUFON conference) rather than on a radio show, so be it. I think reaching over 100,000 people is better than 400 or 500, but that's how things are, and he's entitled to his point of view.

Here is his blog expressing his full opinion on the matter of a debate; he also offers a link to a free online copy of the book:

Follow The Magic Thread

Meanwhile, after reading the book, Stan sent the following comment that he asked me to post:

I must give James Carrion credit for suckering me into buying his book "The Rosetta Deception". I actually did read it. At least I was able to purchase a second-hand copy from Amazon and it is short, only 174 pages. He even provides fictional conversations between Joseph Stalin and Lavrenti Beria (KGB), also between Stalin and his son. He talks a great deal about the Ghost Rockets observed over Sweden in 1946, but provides no evidence at all that the postwar UFO fuss was solely due to a disinformation effort or that the highly touted by him Project Seal was of any great importance. Its final report was only SECRET, not top secret, and only 138 pages long. And fewer that 150 people worked on it. Hardly a big deal at all. I can see why he would want the debate to avoid Roswell and Kenneth Arnold and a host of other items. He provides no evidence there was a Rosetta anything. Of course he doesn't mention the Foo Fighters seen during the war by pilots on both sides. At least I won't have to reread the book.

Stan​

And now we have the real Stan Friedman employing the same debunking tactics he decries in others. Notice how he focuses on the "fictional" which I point out as such in the book but he omits the 98% "factual" of the material that I have hard documentation for. Notice also how Stan tries to gloss over the Ghost Rockets and try to push the conversation towards the "postwar UFO fuss" which really means "Roswell". Notice how he tries to belittle the declassified Seal project because of its classification and length instead of addressing the documented disinformation campaign that Project Seal was implicated in two weeks before Kenneth Arnold. And then when all else fails he brings up the bucket argument by stating well what about the foo fighters. He might as well have said "what about the pyramids?"

So there you have it folks, THAT is what Stanton's debate would have been based on - trying to sandwich my research with a pre and post war argument without spending once ounce of effort to refute the meat of the research. Debating with Stan on the Paracast with this as his debate strategy would have been the same as having a conversation with Stanton's arch enemy Klass. Stanton has become his alter-ego Klass.

Shame on you Stanton for forsaking the pursuit of truth in favor of defending your own theory. Now how about a face off in a debate where you actually show evidence that my book is not factual and you substantiate whatever theory you have for the Ghost Rockets with your own evidence. Research through proclamation? Yes, you Stan have become the greatest debunker of all.

 

[manxman]

It was you who backed out of a live debate, not Stan, smashing all Stan's windows on your way out does'nt hide the fact.
And you wouldnt need to speculate about comparison's with Phil no Klass either.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think, James, that you're asking Stan (and probably Don Berliner too) to reverse points of view developed after years of research. It may take more than a book to do that, and certainly a lengthy discussion of the issues, on a radio show or elsewhere, would help clarify the issues. The opportunity to do that on The Paracast is still open, but if you prefer to use an auditorium instead, because you want a true face-to-face confrontation, that's fine. I hope Stan accepts and you both work something out. Maybe Chris and I can get a video crew in there to record the event.

 

[James Carrion]

It was you who backed out of a live debate, not Stan, smashing all Stan's windows on your way out does'nt hide the fact, you wouldnt need to speculate about comparison's wit h Phil no Klass either.

Really? Maybe you should read my blog entry at Follow The Magic Thread before declaring I backed out. I am 100% for a debate, just not on a call in Internet radio show where there are no ground rules.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Whatever made you think we wouldn't set ground rules for fairness? State your rules here, and I'll bring them to Stan's attention, and perhaps we can work something out. (Remember, too, that The Paracast is also aired on traditional radio stations.)

 

[James Carrion]

I think, James, that you're asking Stan (and probably Don Berliner too) to reverse points of view developed after years of research. It may take more than a book to do that, and certainly a lengthy discussion of the issues, on a radio show or elsewhere, would help clarify the issues. The opportunity to do that on The Paracast is still open, but if you prefer to use an auditorium instead, because you want a true face-to-face confrontation, that's fine. I hope Stan accepts and you both work something out. Maybe Chris and I can get a video crew in there to record the event.

Sounds fine to me but as a point of clarification I am not asking them to reverse anything ... just show me what their years of research on the Ghost Rocket era proves - I want to hear if they actually have a hypothesis and can back it up with solid research and official documentation ...

 

[manxman]

Really? Maybe you should read my blog entry at Follow The Magic Thread before declaring I backed out. I am 100% for a debate, just not on a call in Internet radio show where there are no ground rules.

Sorry, i thought you just wanted a small audience, incase Stan hands you your azz back on a plate.

 

[James Carrion]

Whatever made you think we wouldn't set ground rules for fairness? State your rules here, and I'll bring them to Stan's attention, and perhaps we can work something out. (Remember, too, that The Paracast is also aired on traditional radio stations.)

Gene, the proposed ground rules are stated on my blog:

1. Witness testimony or media reports can't be the sole evidence presented. Official documentation of known provenance must be included as well. And post this documentation on the Internet for all to see ... I will be glad to host it on my site...

2. You have to present an actual theory for what caused the Ghost Rocket sensation. If you think Aliens were behind the rockets, then state it. If you think they were flying leprechauns, then state it. Presenting evidence without proposing a theory for what you're presenting evidence of is not acceptable.

3. Your presentation must not sound like an episode of Ancient Aliens...too many "What ifs" or "Is it possibles" or "Could it bes" is not a presentation. You must answer with evidence the questions you ask.

4. The word Roswell can not be used...different year and different subject..

5. (I just added this one) "Stick to the time frame my book covers - late 1945 - May 1947 - not before, not after ... I really don't want to get into the "bucket argument" debate

Of course Stan and Don may have their own ground rules to propose and I am all ears ....

 

[James Carrion]

Sorry, i thought you just wanted a small audience, incase Stan hands you your azz back on a plate.

Debunking tactics only makes an ass out of one person...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Gene, the proposed ground rules are stated on my blog:

1. Witness testimony or media reports can't be the sole evidence presented. Official documentation of known provenance must be included as well. And post this documentation on the Internet for all to see ... I will be glad to host it on my site...

2. You have to present an actual theory for what caused the Ghost Rocket sensation. If you think Aliens were behind the rockets, then state it. If you think they were flying leprechauns, then state it. Presenting evidence without proposing a theory for what you're presenting evidence of is not acceptable.

3. Your presentation must not sound like an episode of Ancient Aliens...too many "What ifs" or "Is it possibles" or "Could it bes" is not a presentation. You must answer with evidence the questions you ask.

4. The word Roswell can not be used...different year and different subject..

5. (I just added this one) "Stick to the time frame my book covers - late 1945 - May 1947 - not before, not after ... I really don't want to get into the "bucket argument" debate

Of course Stan and Don may have their own ground rules to propose and I am all ears ....

We have the capacity on our server to host all the documentation you want, so I'm happy to make that offer to you and Stan.

As to the rest, I did pop this response back to Stan. Let's see what he says. The invitation is open, and I'm sure we can make this work if both of you agree to the ground rules. But I also expect compromise. No "my way or highway" OK?

 

[James Carrion]

We have the capacity on our server to host all the documentation you want, so I'm happy to make that offer to you and Stan.

As to the rest, I did pop this response back to Stan. Let's see what he says. The invitation is open, and I'm sure we can make this work if both of you agree to the ground rules. But I also expect compromise. No "my way or highway" OK?

I am all willing to compromise as necessary...

 

[Constance]

Way over the top, Mr. Carrion. Your continuing attacks on Stanton Friedman are malicious and vindictive and way out of scale with his comments on your book. They suggest a level of irrational personal animus on your part that is inconsistent with the spirit of rational inquiry. This makes it less likely that some people will want to take the time to read your book on the ghost rockets.