UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 29

Re: OSI CIA NSC MIT AF & UFOs - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 19:23:45 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 16:29:46 -0400
Subject: Re: OSI CIA NSC MIT AF & UFOs - Hall


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 19:00:44 EDT
>Subject: Re: OSI CIA NSC MIT AF & UFOs

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:32:09 +0000
>>Subject: Re: OSI CIA NSC MIT AF & UFOs

>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:25:09 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: British National Archives

>>>>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:45:57 +0100
>>>>Subject: Re: British National Archives UFO Research Guide

>>>>I don't dispute that Clarke and Roberts were the first
>>>>ufologists to _claim_ that they obtained the documents. They've
>>>>_claimed_ to be the first to acquire all sorts of material; an
>>>>article in The Observer on May 5 2002 implied they uncovered a
>>>>CIA memo on UFOs written by Walter B. Smith, when in fact it was
>>>>published by Timothy Good in 1987, in his book Above Top Secret.

>>>In fact there was never any such secret CIA document written by
>>>CIA Director Walter B. Smith in the first place. This is a
>>>serious error of document analysis. Enthusiasts who desperately
>>>want an all-important CIA Director to seemingly be treating UFOs
>>>as a matter of national security have conveniently failed to
>>>read that this one-page document was a DRAFT written by a lower
>>>level CIA official (CIA OSI chief Chadwell) and sent to DCI
>>>Smith in Sept 1952 for his signature and for Smith to send it
>>>officially to the National Security Council (NSC).

>>>But Director Smith never signed the DRAFT and never sent any
>>>such thing off to the NSC. He quite obviously had rejected it!
>>>Chadwell kept re-sending the document for Smith's signature and
>>>urging him to approve OSI's heroic plan to take over the UFO
>>>problem from the AF and set up a government-wide serious
>>>scientific investigation of UFOs, to be directed by the
>>>illustrious MIT - in other words every UFO researcher's dream.
>>>However the enthusiasts refuse to be bothered with such minor
>>>matters as reading documents in context, reading chains of
>>>correspondence for responses and non-responses, discerning
>>>whether "attachments" are drafts and unapproved (or subsequently
>>>rejected by what we would call in legislative affairs a "pocket
>>>veto", you just sit on it and don't act within a period of time
>>>and it dies without having to make a public or even an internal
>>>official expression of rejection).

>What? No comment on the above? It's taken straight from the CIA
>UFO documents of 1952.

At the risk of sounding like Brad Sparks, I simply don't have
the time to comment on every single statement. So let's cut to
the chase...

>If you don't dispute the above then you must agree that the CIA's
>OSI had a "heroic plan to take over the UFO problem from the AF
>and set up a government-wide serious scientific investigation of
>UFOs, to be directed by the illustrious MIT - in other words every
>UFO researcher's dream." This is taken straight out of Chadwell's
>memos to the Director of CIA Smith, so you really cannot dispute
>this and if you cannot dispute this then how can you really reject
>the rest of my argument since it's a natural consequence of the
>preceding, it all flows from these premises?

Because I don't comment doesn't mean I agree with something. If
that were the case I would have to be screaming at the top of my
lungs nonstop.

>It's all taken straight from the CIA UFO documents of 1952,
>publicly released and available on the Internet (except one key
>coverup document the CIA quietly removed from its website).

>>Now here comes the mind-boggling part:

>So you don't dispute the preceding

See above...

>only the following. But you
>cannot separate the two parts. If CIA OSI had a heroic plan to
>take over the AF's UFO project with a government-wide CIA-
> controlled scientific study of UFO's put in the hands of top
>scientists at MIT, then the rest must follow, sorry.

>>>Rank-and-file UFO researchers also do not want the CIA to get
>>>any credit for a heroic role because they have already made up
>>>their minds that the CIA can only have a villainous role in the
>>>UFO controversy, the CIA can only be the evil agency behind the
>>>"sinister coverup" of proof of alien visitation, and that CIA
>>>officials were behind the despised Robertson Panel as diabolical
>>>ETH-denying debunkers.

>>The CIA officials were behind the UFO debunking, clearly and
>>obvioiusly.

>Well Dick can you quote any CIA officials advocating the
>debunking of UFO's in 1952 _prior_ to the Robertson Panel? Not
>just negative or skeptical views, not just quoting AF officials
>advocating the debunking (that's where the CIA got the idea in
>the first place). But CIA officials in 1952 advocating a program
>of debunking UFO's, find me a quote.

>If you were at a Robertson Panel and you were told these were
>the "best UFO" cases the AF had and you found out they blew up
>into pathetic IFO's, you'd be all for debunking UFO's too.
>Unless of course you found out the AF was deceiving you and
>substituting IFO cases for UFO's, and holding back a special
>file of best UFO Unknowns.

Oh, I forgot... the Tremonton film was seagulls. Yeah, right!

<snip>

>Between the date the Robertson Panel was ordered on Dec 4, 1952,
>till it convened on Jan 14, 1953, was only 40 days. And I don't
>believe anyone would give up Christmas and New Year's for such
>an onerous job, and not 6 weekends in a row either. Did CIA have
>someone stationed at Project Blue Book in Dayton during those 40
>days to read through every page?? No, of course not, the CIA
>relied on the AF to select the "best UFO" cases.

>I'm just reporting what is in already publicly released CIA UFO
>documents, but _all_ of them, not just a selection, _all_ of the
>CIA documents, including one the CIA quietly pulled off its FOIA
>reading room website.

>>>In fact the AF was behind the Robertson Panel and forced it on
>>>the CIA. The CIA did not want a hasty small panel rushing to
>>>judgment but wanted a _permanent_ ongoing full-scale scientific
>>>study of UFOs preferably at MIT. In fact CIA/OSI tried to
>>>postpone the Panel to give more time for Battelle's statistical
>>>study but got overruled by evident AF pressure on DCI Smith. The
>>>AF had gone over the CIA's heads in the first place to the IAC
>>>and manipulated orders for a quickie panel done as fast as
>>>possible.

What do you mean the AF was behind the Robertson Panel? It was a
CIA Panel according to the entire historical record. Who
selected the soientists to serve on it? Who medrated it? Where
was it held?

>Again, no comment on the above? It's taken straight from the CIA
>UFO documents of 1952. If you don't dispute the above

See above...

>then you
>cannot dispute the rest. So I take it Dick that you do not dispute
>the facts taken straight out of the CIA documents that:

>(a) CIA OSI did not want a hasty small panel rushing to judgment
>but wanted a _permanent_ ongoing full-scale scientific study of
>UFO's preferably at MIT;

>(b) CIA/OSI tried to postpone the Panel to give more time for
>Battelle's statistical study (of the full 4,000 AF UFO cases
>that CIA did not have copies of and could not possibly have read
>in the short time forced on it) but OSI's postponement got
>overruled, and they were forced back onto the fast-track
>schedule for the Robertson Panel.

It's this sort of mind-reading which reveals your constant
confusion between facts and your personal opinions and
interpretations. You never present your argument in full and
document it. Instead, you claim it's all there in the record.  I
certainly dispuite that. Until you publish your case in a book
or full-length thesis, it just won't float.

>>Note language highlighted *** by me (Hall)

>>>The AF tricked the CIA with ***deviously selected IFO cases***
>>>dressed up as the "best" UFOs. Based on this the CIA reached the
>>>conclusion that UFOs were ET in origin in late 1952 (as Chadwell
>>>and his deputy Ralph Clark both told me) but only until the AF
>>>sprung its trap at the Robertson Panel.

>>What was the motivation for this devious Air Force plot, Brad?
>>We now know firmly that the Air Force (very strong key elements
>>thereof) did believe UFOs were ET in origin. Are you suggesting
>>thye deliberately deceived the CIA in this regard out of
>>organizational jealousy?

>Oh so you're telling me Dick that the fact (it's an indisputable
>fact on the record as I've repeatedly pointed out) that the CIA
>tried to take over an Air Force intelligence program (the one on
>UFO's) by trying to go over the AF's head to the National
>Security Council (NSC) that didn't piss off the AF to the max
>and make the AF, the single largest and most powerful agency of
>the US Government in 1952, to swear out a vendetta against the
>tiny pipsqueak upstart CIA??

This is your interpretation, Brad, and a very poorly documented
opinion.

>It's also an indisputable fact, on the public record, that CIA
>associated its UFO researchers' dream plan for an ongoing
>permanent scientific study of UFO's with those that the paranoid
>McCarthyite AF Strategic Air Command (SAC) partisans deemed to
>be guilty of "TREASON" and that the CIA did not realize this
>until it was too late that it had touched a raw nerve with the
>AF. Obviously that pissed off the AF even more than the blatant
>CIA power grab in trying to take over an Air Intelligence
>mission (UFO's).

I love your 'indisputable facts'. If Brad Sparks says so, its
indisputable. It doesn't have to be documented. Geez, I wish I
had that primal authority; it would save me so much time.

>This too is in the public record of CIA and other government
>documents which no one bothers to read. You do not need my 1979
>in-person interview of Fournet's boss in AF Intelligence, Col.
>Weldon H. Smith, former Chief, Current Intelligence Branch,
>Topical Intelligence Division, Deputy Directorate for Estimates,
>(AFOIN-2A2), raging in anger even after almost a quarter century
>that the CIA had tried to intrude into the AF's jurisdiction
>over UFO's as a strictly Air Intelligence matter. This is
>already something that can be deduced from the public records --
> if you look hard enough and read enough documents (I've read
>100,000's of pages in the course of my research) and do enough
>oral history interviews of key participants (I've done about 100
>CIA Directors, Deputy Directors, Asst. Directors, AFOIN
>officers, NSA, and many others).

The truth is in there!

>However I do not intend to spend time here giving out _all_ of
>my years of hard work, my proprietary research work product
>amounting to 3,000+ pages in very crude rough draft format, to
>lay out the case. Quoting the 100's of pages of public CIA-AF
>documents to prove every nitpicky little point would itself
>obviously take 100's of pages of posts and I don't intend to
>give it all away in that fashion anyway. The public documents
>are there for you and anyone else to read and I've laid out some
>signs on a road map.

Yes, you don't care to document it as all lesser mortals are
required to do. How convenient.

>>>**As the AF planned***, the supposed "best UFO" cases blew up
>>>into IFO's at the Robertson Panel, which never got the set of best
>>>cases that Ruppelt kept in a special file collection. The CIA was
>>>humiliated and never suspected it was an AF trick. The CIA
>>>was thus manipulated by the AF into drawing the conclusion that
>>>UFOs must just be IFO's, nothing more, and ought to be
>>>vigorously debunked. But the UFO community does not want to read
>>>the released CIA documents and see this is the case - the CIA
>>>can only be the root of all UFO evil in the UFO community's
>>>party line view of UFO history.

If you believe the Tremonton objects were seagulls, then I have
grave doubts about your analytical abilities. I personally
interviewed Newhouse at length and I have read the Baker et al.
analyses.

>>Where is the slightest documentary evidence for this extreme
>>revisionist history?

>What you call "extreme revisionist history" is in fact taken
>straight out of publicly available declassified and other CIA-AF
>documents, and even published press interviews, as I've been
>painstakingly pointing out (above), in fact in the very quote
>above I say this is in "the released CIA documents." I just do
>not intend to give it all away here.

Just publish it!

I welcome you to read _all_
>the CIA documents from 1952 for example. And you apparently do
>not dispute that the CIA OSI tried to set up every UFO
>researcher's dream team at MIT to do the full-scale top-rank
>scientific study of UFO's we've all dreamed about for ages. Just
>read Chadwell's memos to the Director of the CIA. I apologize
>that Chadwell's memos amount to over 50 pages or so, but I can't
>help that fact, and I cannot type out 50+ pages here on UFO
>UpDates and go over them line by line for another 50+ pages of
>commentary-analysis-explanation, and I trust you will agree that
>such a 100+-page project is an unreasonable demand.

No, it's not unreasonable. If you continually make claims that
are, in fact, revisionist, it is your responsbility to either
document them or stop claiming them.


  - Dick





[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com