Constance, I don't want a revolution....as I have written before, trying to convince the wide majority of believers that the ET hypothesis is not a given and that there is human deception at play and has been since the early days of the modern UFO era is as useless as telling fundamentalist Christians to not hold their breath for the second coming. It is offensive because it strikes a nerve - a raw belief system that many hold dear. My bitching and moaning as you call it is not directed to those whose minds are already made up, but at the newcomers to this field, who have a genuine interest in knowing the truth. My research is not going to reveal the WHOLE truth but it sure will open up people's minds that this phenomenon is not just nuts and bolts extraterrestrial craft that people are witnessing.
No doubt most people who fail to follow the ufo subject beyond youtube videos are vulnerable to the "nuts and bolts extraterrestrial craft" hypothesis as a total explanation of ufo phenomena. I don't think they are likely to read your book or your blogs, however. And in the meantime, what you write about the ETH and ufo research in general seems to me to be needlessly confrontational, inviting equally strong responses .
First, let me say that if I had known you were about to be interviewed again on the Paracast (and thus that you might still be reading this forum), I would have been less confrontational toward/about you in my post. I did not intend to put you on the defensive here by my responses to Chris O’Brien’s opening post. I intended to express my suspicions of the confrontational manner of your former postings here and in the blog that Chris linked.
No doubt you are correct in your identification of US attempts to manipulate the global political situation at the time of the ‘ghost rockets’ phenomenon in Sweden. Both the UK and the US were jockeying for position with the Swedes in their investigation and interpretation of the ghost rockets, and from my previous reading about that it was the UK that won out in terms of maintaining influence with the Swedes and admission to their internal investigation. (correct me if I’m misremembering what I read long ago)
It’s obvious that the US attempted then, and has attempted since then, to manipulate public perceptions of ufo phenomena (as well as international politics) in a number of ways and for a variety of reasons. And no doubt the US national security agencies’ increasing interest in mind-control technologies, including mind-altering drugs and hypnosis in addition to other manipulations, became influential in the determination of these agencies to find ways of controlling public perceptions of ufo-related events and situations as well as political ones. A lengthy and informative article on this broad subject is provided by Clueless Wonder at his website ‘The UFO Trail’ at this link:
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2014/08/psy-ops-and-mind-control-then-now-and.html
Brewer also writes in general support of the research presented in your recent book,
The Rosetta Deception, at this link:
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2014/10/considerations-of-work-of-james-carrion.html
Here is an extract from that blog:
Perhaps the biggest hurdle to accurately understanding intelligence operations, and particularly those that overlap with the UFO community, would be the failure to consider there is no all inclusive explanation. There is more than one reason the IC manipulated circumstances commonly perceived as related to UFOs. The purposes and objectives change from one specific circumstance to the next and cannot be discussed effectively in an overly generalized manner. Particular eras and specific cases should be considered independently of one another.
Consider, for example, a now declassified
1954 CIA memo in which agents were instructed to contemplate fabricating a sensational UFO story. The purpose of the potential fabrication was not in and of itself to deceive the public. The objective, according to the memo, was to divert public attention from Agency involvement in a Guatemalan coup.
If we neglect to seek such documents, we fail ourselves as researchers. We also fail as interested members of the public searching for accurate information.
If we perpetually subscribe to extreme beliefs, to either side of center, we increase the likelihood we are missing important data. That would be the case in arguing the IC was never involved in ufology, as well as limiting our perspectives to the incorrect assumptions that the only objectives must have involved either covering up an alien presence or the polar opposite of deceiving the public into believing aliens are among us. As Carrion suggests in his work and the 1954 CIA memo demonstrates, there are many potential objectives for UFO-related deception operations. Their intricacy would be par for the course, not the exception to the rule.
Here is an extract from another blog by Brewer written after your interview on the Paracast last July:
At the 2:06:30 point of the interview, Carrion commented on MUFON in general. Are they sincere or advancing disinformation?
"I don't think you can really label it that easily. I think there are folks that genuinely have – in the organization – that have a genuine interest in knowing the truth. I think there are folks in the organization that are very much true believers and they discard a lot of evidence presented to them... I've fallen out of favor with MUFON in that they lost their way. Their motto is the scientific investigation of UFOs and you would be hard pressed to find anything that resembles science in that organization.
I think that's reflected in these shows that they're doing on Discovery Channel. You know,
it's almost embarrassing to watch to see MUFON lower themselves to repeating mythology and repeating folklore and repeating outrageous allegations, and not sticking to what they should be sticking to, which is pure science.[/quote]
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2014/07/james-carrion-to-podcasters-deception.html
Would that they could rely on 'pure science' performed by scientists working in the public interest to follow up on the data they collect and the data that has been collected by citizen ufo researchers over the last 65 years. More about that below.
I think there’s no question that research into the history of the alphabet agencies, the US military, and the military industrial complex relating to ufo research is necessary in studying the history of ufo phenomena and public perceptions about these phenomena. But I think these varieties of manipulation and disinformation are a far cry from demonstrating that the entire modern ufo phenomenon can be accounted for as a massive, planet-wide ‘psy op’ that undermines the ETH as, in the words of the COMETA scientists and researchers, “the best
available hypothesis” for those cases providing evidence that some ufos have been physically real (substantial), intelligently operated, and “not ours.” [That evidence consists of radar data, demonstrable electromagnetic interference in encounters in the air, and physical trace evidence on the ground in soils and plants, on bent railroad ties, etc. That evidence is sufficient to support educated civilian as well as scientific hypotheses concerning the physical nature and possible origin -- i.e., 'not us' -- of some ufos in a number of events and cases.]
Continued investigation of ufos evidencing physical reality and effects is a necessary (even vital) undertaking for a species such as ours living in a physical world and experiencing our planet’s 65-year-long modern ufo history. The ETH was and remains a reasonable hypothesis, might even be the ‘best
available hypothesis’, concerning those ufo events and cases that most interest us. The related interdimensional hypothesis also has its merits, though it is based on pure theory rather than scientific knowledge at this point. Your general attack on the ETH strikes me as being presuppositional and ill-advised in our current situation given the limitations of our species’ available knowledge about the physical world in which we exist. In our present situation, given the continuing “
default of science” in addressing ufo phenomena {as argued by James McDonald in the 1960s and again by Bruce Maccabee in recent years}, I think it is also essentially unreasonable to declare that MUFON’s continuing data-gathering and analyses do more harm than good since its participating researchers are in general unable to perform fully ‘scientific’ analyses of cases. Let us grant then that MUFON is not COMETA and does not approach the level of scientific investigation of ufos recommended by the scientific panel assembled by Sturrock in the 90s and still called for by many ufo researchers today. As I see it, MUFON still serves the interests of ufo inquiry in gathering data into the present, despite the unwillingness of scientists to participate in its work.
Given the failure of public science to investigate and report to the public concerning ufo phenomena , and given the continuous manipulation of public perceptions concerning ufos effected by the security agencies of the US government, we in the ‘ufo community’ are still being kept like mushrooms in the dark and fed bullshit by our own official agencies. Add to that the increasing doubt engineered in our popular culture concerning the reliability of our species’ general capacities for perceiving and thinking rationally about what we see, and we have a situation in which numerous increasingly fanciful theories thrive, also recommending that ufo research and hypotheses of the past be shuttled. .
As I see it, we need by all means to understand how and by whom our conceptions about ufo phenomena have been manipulated, and
why – for what purpose or purposes. We also need to understand more about the nature of human perception and consciousness – and this is
work in progress in multiple fields. And we need to continue pursuing the data and evidence concerning unidentified ufos witnessed around and sometimes landed upon the earth on which we dwell –
to the extent to which we can do that without the participation of science.
To the extent to which your attacks on MUFON and the ufo research of the last six decades undermine the will of people interested in ufos to pursue physical explanations for those ufos that call for it, I think you are doing a disservice to the field. If you continue to seek confrontation with the complement of ufo researchers of the past and present, you will continue to receive confrontational responses. Why not lose the provocative attitude and make your contributions to this enormous and much-vexed subject on their own merits, as partial and useful insights into the complexity of the various phenomena we are dealing with? And kindly drop the contemptuous references to ufo ‘true believers’. None of us civilians know enough at this point to reach an informed
conviction that we can account for the nature and origin of all or even some ufos and related phenomena. We are a long way from reaching that point, and your particular approach to the subject can make, does make, a partial contribution to our understanding. Why not be satisfied with that?
