National Press Club Conference on UFO's

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby Access Denied » Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:12 am

caryn wrote:Absolutely….they sure would! There has been an incredible amount of work, time and effort put in to presenting the data, highlighting the potential perils, to the international aviation communities.

I applaud the effort but IMO if the FAA or Military thought there was a problem they would already be "doing something about it" and no, it wouldn't be a secret.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Postby lost_shaman » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:05 am

Access Denied wrote:NOT in the UK. From the MoD report Executive Summary…


Yes you're right. However, if these incidents are still classified then they would not appear in the 'declassified' report. :P


Access Denied wrote:Attempts by other nations to intercept the unexplained objects, which can clearly change position than aircraft, have reportedly already caused fatalities. However, there is no indication that deliberate "UAP chasing" has caused this in the UKADR [p. 10][/b]


Great , this tells us no 'declassified' reports of fatalities occurred during a "UAP chasing".



Access Denied wrote:
The MoD shouldn't be considered an authoritive source for validating incidents reported to have occurred in other countries as it appears you’ve done here.


Let's think in terms of corroboration not authority.

Access Denied wrote:In my opinion, in the eyes of the "mainstream" it’s no doubt perceived as a thinly veiled disguise for the belief by some that Aliens are in our midst.

YMMV…


Let me take a page from your own 'Play Book' and say "So What?"

Ask yourself what did the Church reports tell us about the "mainstream"?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby lost_shaman » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:15 am

Access Denied wrote:
caryn wrote:Absolutely….they sure would! There has been an incredible amount of work, time and effort put in to presenting the data, highlighting the potential perils, to the international aviation communities.

I applaud the effort but IMO if the FAA or Military thought there was a problem they would already be "doing something about it" and no, it wouldn't be a secret.


AD,

Isn't that a circular argument?

I mean you know there is not an ongoing public investigation by the FAA or Military. You're making the assumption that the lack of FAA response means that the Airspace is actually sterile. The fact is you have nothing conclusive to show that is the case.

You make the case that 'IF' something UFOlogical was happening it would NOT be a SECRET. IMHO that is absolutely ludicrous AD!!! Just think the CIA admits to some control over the MSM! The CIA admits to influencing public opinion about UFOs in the negative, actively over several decades!!! The CIA claims 50% of UFO sightings were sighting of the U-2, which is bogus at face value.

Let me ask you this... Have you ever even seen a UAP AD? I have.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:59 pm

lost_shaman wrote:You make the case that 'IF' something UFOlogical was happening it would NOT be a SECRET. IMHO that is absolutely ludicrous AD!!!

OK then please explain to me why you think it is being kept a secret. Is it because you don’t think the public could handle the “truth”? Also, as far as the FAA is concerned, how many aircraft carrying passengers for example (if you want to argue the public needs to be concerned) have been downed by a UFO that you know of? Let me guess, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? lol

lost_shaman wrote:Just think the CIA admits to some control over the MSM!

You keep citing the Church Committee… what does that have to do with UFOs? As I’ve said every time you bring this up I’ve searched that report for the keywords “alien”, “UFO” and “flying saucer” and it turned up nothing. Looks like you’re “connecting the dots” that aren’t there…

NEWS FLASH: UFOs ARE NOT A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY!

[yes, it’s official] :D

The only legitimate reason I can see that the CIA would need to be concerned with UFOs is the potential for civilian UFO groups to be infiltrated by subversive interests (e.g. foreign intelligence services)… a lot of folks in those groups are already disillusioned with the USG and buy into every conspiracy under the sun so they are particularly vulnerable.

Where’s your evidence that the CIA is suppressing UFO information in the MSM? Do you have cable or satellite TV? Have seen the number of shows about Roswell? It it because nobody takes it as seriously as YOU think they should that you think it’s the CIAs fault? Has it ever occurred to you it’s because the so-called “evidence” stinks and it’s sounds like something out of a really bad 50s science fiction novel?

Did the CIA suppress the recent O’Hare “UFO” story in the MSM that you’re so fond of?

:roll:

lost_shaman wrote:The CIA admits to influencing public opinion about UFOs in the negative, actively over several decades!!!

Let me guess… this is about the Robertson Panel again isn’t it? UFOlogists have consistently misinterpreted and twisted the SUGGESTIONS of that document born out of legitimate cold war era paranoia to fit their agenda to no end… and no I’m not interested in another argument about it. I’ve already stated my opinion on that here and elsewhere numerous times. Now if you’re talking about this…

CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... s/ufo.html

An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have at least heard or read something about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percent believe they are real. Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO. UFOlogists--a neologism for UFO buffs--and private UFO organizations are found throughout the United States. Many are convinced that the US Government, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy and coverup of the issue. The idea that CIA has secretly concealed its research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the modern UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s.

In late 1993, after being pressured by UFOlogists for the release of additional CIA information on UFOs, DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this study traces CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s to 1990. It chronologically examines the Agency's efforts to solve the mystery of UFOs, its programs that had an impact on UFO sightings, and its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in the entire UFO issue. What emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena.

…what’s the big deal? They’ve taken responsibility for their early involvement and acknowledged the mistrust it created and gotten over it… why haven’t you?

lost_shaman wrote:The CIA claims 50% of UFO sightings were sighting of the U-2, which is bogus at face value.

Well then they obviously didn’t do their homework as well as the AF did. :D

lost_shaman wrote:Let me ask you this... Have you ever even seen a UAP AD? I have.

I saw a UFO with my Mom when I was kid, does that count? Tells us LS was it an alien spacecraft? And for the benefit of others who don’t know what you’re talking about, why don’t you start a thread here in the “Experiences” section about your sighting? (seriously)

P.S. For those who might be alarmed by this post don’t worry, LS and I are friends… we just don’t agree on anything when it comes to UFOs and we enjoy beating each other over the head with it occasionally. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:13 am

Access Denied wrote:OK then please explain to me why you think it is being kept a secret. Is it because you don’t think the public could handle the “truth”?


I don't pretend to know why. It's a good question and I've been asking it myself since Nov. 2002.

No, I personally don't think the public could not handle the "truth". If I thought that I wouldn't be posting about UAP in public forums.

Access Denied wrote:Also, as far as the FAA is concerned, how many aircraft carrying passengers for example (if you want to argue the public needs to be concerned) have been downed by a UFO that you know of? Let me guess, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? lol


I personally am not aware of any Passenger Aircraft that have been officially pronounced as being 'downed by a UFO' in the U.S. However, on several occasions Pilots have reported that they were forced to make evasive maneuvers in order to avoid potential collision with UAP/UFOs. That is the major hazard especially at low altitude.

The Nov. 7th O'Hare incident is a perfect example of a potentially hazardous situation involving UAP and Passenger Aircraft at low altitudes. There had the UAP been only 100 yards or so West of its reported location it would have been directly over the runways of one of, if not the most, busiest Airports in the World instead of being directly above Concourse C and luckily out of the way. Had the UAP been over the runways just under the cloud layer, as reported, it may have caused a descending Aircraft's Pilot to take evasive action and at those altitudes that type of control inputs could potentially be catastrophic.

The Condign report warned of these hazards in 2000 (declassified 2006). It also discusses loss of Aircraft and Life (mainly Military Aircraft and Pilots) reported to the U.K. by other countries.


NARCAP has also warned of these hazards and the NARCAP reports are on-line for everyone to read and have been for years.

http://www.narcap.org/





Access Denied wrote:You keep citing the Church Committee… what does that have to do with UFOs? As I’ve said every time you bring this up I’ve searched that report for the keywords “alien”, “UFO” and “flying saucer” and it turned up nothing. Looks like you’re “connecting the dots” that aren’t there…


It doesn't have anything to do with UFOs UNTIL you connect the Dots! UFOs are not mentioned in the report, you are correct and I never implied that was the case. The report deals with CIA involvement with the MSM. It tells us that Journalists and the major News Organizations in the U.S. were by and large on the CIA's Payroll.

Now if you look back historically is it any wonder that Press Coverage of the Phenomena neatly parallels the CIA's position and attitude toward the Phenomena?

Access Denied wrote:Where’s your evidence that the CIA is suppressing UFO information in the MSM? Do you have cable or satellite TV? Have seen the number of shows about Roswell? It it because nobody takes it as seriously as YOU think they should that you think it’s the CIAs fault? Has it ever occurred to you it’s because the so-called “evidence” stinks and it’s sounds like something out of a really bad 50s science fiction novel?


This isn't about Roswell, it's about perpetuating the 'belief' that there's no such thing as UFOs/UAP in the atmosphere. That is the 'belief' that the MSM has perpetuated for decades now and it seems that this is the line that the CIA wished to have the MSM portray.


Access Denied wrote:Did the CIA suppress the recent O’Hare “UFO” story in the MSM that you’re so fond of?


The goal isn't to 'suppress' every event, that isn't possible. The idea is to perpetuate the 'belief' that all these events are 'non-sense' and laughable.


Access Denied wrote: Let me guess… this is about the Robertson Panel again isn’t it?


Well yes in part it would be wouldn't it AD? The recommendation was to make the subject a focus for public ridicule. :wink:

Access Denied wrote:Now if you’re talking about this…

CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... s/ufo.html

An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have at least heard or read something about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percent believe they are real. Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO. UFOlogists--a neologism for UFO buffs--and private UFO organizations are found throughout the United States. Many are convinced that the US Government, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy and coverup of the issue. The idea that CIA has secretly concealed its research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the modern UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s.

In late 1993, after being pressured by UFOlogists for the release of additional CIA information on UFOs, DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this study traces CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s to 1990. It chronologically examines the Agency's efforts to solve the mystery of UFOs, its programs that had an impact on UFO sightings, and its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in the entire UFO issue. What emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena.


Yes that is also part of it because here the CIA admits to part of it's involvement in the UFO 'issue'.




Access Denied wrote:Well then they obviously didn’t do their homework as well as the AF did. :D


Yeah the AF really did their homework compared to the CIA didn't they AD?! :roll:

I wonder who answered to who?

Did the Air Force answer to the CIA, or did the CIA answer to Blue Book? :roll:



Access Denied wrote:I saw a UFO with my Mom when I was kid, does that count? Tells us LS was it an alien spacecraft?


The question is DO YOU think it was an Alien Spacecraft?

If you witnessed a UAP, then no I doubt it was an Alien Spacecraft but I wouldn't hold it against you if you personally thought that because UAP tend to be extremely exotic and rare phenomena.

Access Denied wrote:P.S. For those who might be alarmed by this post don’t worry, LS and I are friends… we just don’t agree on anything when it comes to UFOs and we enjoy beating each other over the head with it occasionally. :)


It's true, AD and I are friends who often disagree on the UFO/UAP issues. Although I think misunderstanding and assumptions cause most of that.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby ryguy » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:01 am

UPDATE

The recent media flap in November (see the first couple posts at the start of this thread) related to efforts at getting the government to release what it knows about UFO's included a number of testimonies from officials. One such official was John Callahan, and was a testimony that wasn't new - but was a repeat of similar testimony offered through the years, including in prior support of Greer's "Disclosure Project".

Reading this news, there was a quote John offered that a number of people found extremely interesting:

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/Callahansummary.pdf

The UFO was painted as an extremely large primary target. As a result of the lacking run length identification the FAA computer system treated the UFO RADAR return as “weather” and transmitted it to the controller’s PVD via a non recorded line. (All known aircraft are programed in the FAA computer systems “Run Length” table.)

At the conclusion of the hand-off briefing the CIA advised they were “confiscating all the data, this event never happened, we were never here and you are all sworn to secrecy.” They also advised they would not notify the media as “it would scare the public.”


A few days after these latest national news reports were released in November where a number of the reports had quoted Callahan's statement regarding the CIA in particular - we were contacted by one of our sources who mentioned that he'd heard from "someone who knew one of the folks who was there," at the FAA/CIA meeting, and was told that the person who made that statement and confiscated all of the data was the CIA Science & Technology person of the time....and he noted that this person was also one of our (RU's) own sources.

It didn't take very long to realize who he was referring to. I contacted the source who was the CIA person at the FAA meeting mentioned by Callahan and asked him about this quote.

His response was immediate - he was not the person who made that statement, nor did he take the material. The person who did both was actually UFO Researcher Bruce Maccabee, who had been brought along to the FAA briefing due to his expertise and his previous experience offered to the CIA related to sightings such as the New Zealand case, which he'd previously briefed the CIA on in the late 79's and early 80's.

By 1986, at the time of this JAL sighting, Maccabee was a respected contact with the CIA and so it make sense that he was brought along to assist with the investigation of yet another UFO sighting.

Our source indicated that Bruce was in fact there, and that he was the one who made the statement that the event never happened and took all of the materials. Our source indicated that he assumed Bruce simply wanted to "scoop" the story before anyone else. When I asked the source why he would allow Bruce to take possession of the materials - the source stated that he had no interest in the materials and simply asked Bruce to notify him if there was any indication of foreign aircraft "shadowing" the airliner. (Small aircraft tailing close enough to a large airliner will show up on radar as a single 'blip' in order to evade detection).

We've recently contacted Bruce Maccabee twice for confirmation of this story, as told by the source who was the CIA officer at the time - and Mr. Maccabee has offered no comment.

However - we can quote from Maccabee's own words on his website, in his intro to the report he eventually wrote based on the FAA materials:

http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html

What you are about to read is the most complete and analytical investigation of this
sighting ever published. (This was originally published in the International UFO Reporter,
March/April, 1987, published by the Center for UFO Studies. This report took up the whole issue
of the IUR.)


The name of the article: THE FANTASTIC FLIGHT OF JAL1628 by Bruce Maccabee

The article contains all of the transcripts, drawings, etc...

If the story is true....the terrible Irony (with a capital I) is that the mystique and intrigue generated by the quote from an alleged "CIA" spook...may actually have been a comment from a UFO researcher intent to make sure the story did not "get out" before he had a chance to scoop the story himself.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:15 am

ryguy wrote:I contacted the source who was the CIA person at the FAA meeting mentioned by Callahan and asked him about this quote.

<snip>

By 1986, at the time of this JAL sighting, Maccabee was a respected contact with the CIA and so it make sense that he was brought along to assist with the investigation of yet another UFO sighting.



Ry,

Thanks for bringing that up because AD was trying to convince me I was foolish to even think that the CIA did anything but try to hide their early 1950's involvement with the UFO Phenomena.

Clearly that's not the case.

LS
Last edited by lost_shaman on Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:10 am

lost_shaman wrote:Clearly that's not the case.

I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole.

Excellent post Ryan!

Funny you should this mention this as I recently reviewed Maccabee's "analysis" while researching the JAL case and found so many logical fallacies and blatant examples of glossing over/ignoring evidence contradictory to the pilot’s official account I didn't know where to begin... so I gave up… and went with the FAA’s reports instead.

Also worth considering for example is the following points raised in this article from the December 1987/January 1988 issue of Air & Space Magazine...

http://ufologie.net/htm/airspacemag87.htm

[emphasis mine]

As the airplane passed over Eielson Air Force Base, near Fairbanks, the captain said he noticed, looming behind his airplane, the dark silhouette of a gigantic "mothership" larger than two aircraft carriers. He asked air traffic control for permission to take his airplane around in a complete circle and then descend to 31,000 feet. Terauchi said his shadower followed him through both maneuvers.

A United Airlines fight and a military C-130 were both in the area and Anchorage asked the airplanes to change course, intercept the Japanese 747, and confirm the sighting. Both airplanes flew close enough to see JAL 1628's navigation lights, alone in the night sky, before Terauchi reported that the unidentified flying objects had disappeared. The encounter had lasted nearly 50 minutes.

[snip]

Captain Terauchi of JAL flight 1628 was equally convinced that he had encountered an extraterrestrial craft in the skies above Alaska. Skeptics are not so sure, citing the fact that Terauchi had reported seeing UFOs on two previous occasions - and would report yet another sighting the following January, again over Alaska. (He would later explain his second Alaskan encounter as city lights reflecting off ice crystals in the clouds.)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ryguy » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:54 pm

lost_shaman wrote:
Ry,

Thanks for bringing that up because AD was trying to convince me I was foolish to even think that the CIA did anything but try to hide their early 1950's involvement with the UFO Phenomena.

Clearly that's not the case.

LS


1986 and 1950's are two completely different decades and different political environments. Are you referring to CIA activity in the 50's, or what we know about CIA activities through the 80's and 90's?

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby lost_shaman » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:33 am

ryguy wrote:1986 and 1950's are two completely different decades and different political environments. Are you referring to CIA activity in the 50's, or what we know about CIA activities through the 80's and 90's?

-Ry


I was referring to CIA involvement with the UFO Phenomena after the early 1950's up to at least the late 1980's, specifically the involvement that got partially white-washed by Gerald K. Haines, "CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90". Which claims, and AD seems to take as Gospel, that after 1953 or so the CIA was basically only exclusively interested in covering up it's own involvement with the UFO Phenomena in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

The truth appears to be that the CIA never did stop trying to "persuade the public that UFOs were not extraordinary," (Haines) after 1953. Nor did the CIA stop taking an 'active' interest in the Phenomena after 1953 as Haines (and AD) maintained. Here the '86 JAL sighting you (Ry) referenced the CIA presence demonstrates 'active' interest in current UFO sightings as late as 1986.

There are other examples. For instance the CIA was known to be involved with the 'Condon Report'. It's therefore interesting that the "trick" according to Dr. Robert Low's (1966 Memo) is this...

"Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by nonbelievers who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result could, and probably would, add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but to the scientific community would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective, but having almost zero expectation of finding a saucer. One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing - the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs. If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examination of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message... I'm inclined to feel at this early stage that, if we set up the thing right and take pains to get proper people involved and have success in presenting the image we want to present to the scientific community, we could carry the job off to our benefit." - Memo from Dr. Robert Low to university officials on August 9, 1966 three months prior to the beginning of the University of Colorado's official UFO study.

Is that NOT transparent as the CIA's position of "persuade the public (and Scientific community) that UFOs were not extraordinary"?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:00 am

lost_shaman wrote:Here the '86 JAL sighting you (Ry) referenced the CIA presence demonstrates 'active' interest in current UFO sightings as late as 1986.

:roll:

LS I'm not sure why you did all that typing when if you had noticed a few posts back before Ryan’s I had quoted and *highlighted* this statement from the CIA study for your benefit...

What emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena.

If that’s not confirmation of *some* interest I don’t know what is.

What part of what Ryan posted about what actually occurred in this case as it was relayed to him says something other than limited and peripheral attention to you?

Did you miss the part about *why* the CIA would be interested?

[hint: it’s a valid reason and it has nothing to do with “ridiculing” the subject]

Please make some effort to comprehend what is *actually* being said before you post. Unlike at ATS, ignoring the facts being presented to you and using twisted logic in order to support your beliefs isn’t going to earn you any points here. I’m sorry but if anyone is ridiculing the subject I'm afraid it’s you…

Let me guess… I bet you think there’s like what thousands (tens of thousands?) of CIA agents tasked to monitor the “global UFO situation” 24/7 ready to be dispatched at a moment’s notice to “keep a lid on it” for fear of somebody somewhere [gasp] thinking there’s "something going on"?

I can’t imagine what it would be like for you to find out there may be only one or a handful at best who pay any attention to UFO reports.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby murnut » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:40 pm

ryguy wrote:UPDATE

The recent media flap in November (see the first couple posts at the start of this thread) related to efforts at getting the government to release what it knows about UFO's included a number of testimonies from officials. One such official was John Callahan, and was a testimony that wasn't new - but was a repeat of similar testimony offered through the years, including in prior support of Greer's "Disclosure Project".

Reading this news, there was a quote John offered that a number of people found extremely interesting:

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/Callahansummary.pdf

The UFO was painted as an extremely large primary target. As a result of the lacking run length identification the FAA computer system treated the UFO RADAR return as “weather” and transmitted it to the controller’s PVD via a non recorded line. (All known aircraft are programed in the FAA computer systems “Run Length” table.)

At the conclusion of the hand-off briefing the CIA advised they were “confiscating all the data, this event never happened, we were never here and you are all sworn to secrecy.” They also advised they would not notify the media as “it would scare the public.”


A few days after these latest national news reports were released in November where a number of the reports had quoted Callahan's statement regarding the CIA in particular - we were contacted by one of our sources who mentioned that he'd heard from "someone who knew one of the folks who was there," at the FAA/CIA meeting, and was told that the person who made that statement and confiscated all of the data was the CIA Science & Technology person of the time....and he noted that this person was also one of our (RU's) own sources.

It didn't take very long to realize who he was referring to. I contacted the source who was the CIA person at the FAA meeting mentioned by Callahan and asked him about this quote.

His response was immediate - he was not the person who made that statement, nor did he take the material. The person who did both was actually UFO Researcher Bruce Maccabee, who had been brought along to the FAA briefing due to his expertise and his previous experience offered to the CIA related to sightings such as the New Zealand case, which he'd previously briefed the CIA on in the late 79's and early 80's.

By 1986, at the time of this JAL sighting, Maccabee was a respected contact with the CIA and so it make sense that he was brought along to assist with the investigation of yet another UFO sighting.

Our source indicated that Bruce was in fact there, and that he was the one who made the statement that the event never happened and took all of the materials. Our source indicated that he assumed Bruce simply wanted to "scoop" the story before anyone else. When I asked the source why he would allow Bruce to take possession of the materials - the source stated that he had no interest in the materials and simply asked Bruce to notify him if there was any indication of foreign aircraft "shadowing" the airliner. (Small aircraft tailing close enough to a large airliner will show up on radar as a single 'blip' in order to evade detection).

We've recently contacted Bruce Maccabee twice for confirmation of this story, as told by the source who was the CIA officer at the time - and Mr. Maccabee has offered no comment.

However - we can quote from Maccabee's own words on his website, in his intro to the report he eventually wrote based on the FAA materials:

http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html

What you are about to read is the most complete and analytical investigation of this
sighting ever published. (This was originally published in the International UFO Reporter,
March/April, 1987, published by the Center for UFO Studies. This report took up the whole issue
of the IUR.)


The name of the article: THE FANTASTIC FLIGHT OF JAL1628 by Bruce Maccabee

The article contains all of the transcripts, drawings, etc...

If the story is true....the terrible Irony (with a capital I) is that the mystique and intrigue generated by the quote from an alleged "CIA" spook...may actually have been a comment from a UFO researcher intent to make sure the story did not "get out" before he had a chance to scoop the story himself.

-Ry



Great work Ry
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Postby ryguy » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:27 pm

Access Denied wrote:What part of what Ryan posted about what actually occurred in this case as it was relayed to him says something other than limited and peripheral attention to you?

Did you miss the part about *why* the CIA would be interested?


Right...AD recognized the punchline.

Here it is again:

When I asked the source why he would allow Bruce to take possession of the materials - the source stated that he had no interest in the materials and simply asked Bruce to notify him if there was any indication of foreign aircraft "shadowing" the airliner. (Small aircraft tailing close enough to a large airliner will show up on radar as a single 'blip' in order to evade detection).


CIA's only real interest in this case was whether an airplane or other aircraft was attempting to evade detection. The analysis was actually handed off, overall, to a civilian UFO researcher...chosen for both his Navy experience and his tireless analysis of unknown aerial phenomenon. If this analysis showed any sign of a foreign attempt to illegally enter airspace, the CIA would be interested - otherwise...they simply allowed the civilian UFO organization to do whatever they wanted with the story. Bruce eventually published his article through the UFO org he was part of.

With that said, this CIA officer's predecessor had a somewhat different approach and belief-set. It appears, just from looking at the behaviors of the men who dealt with this field for the agency through the 80's and 90's, much of the agency's interactions on the domestic front related to UFO's had more to do with the individual belief-set of the person sitting at the "weird desk" (whether the person was more of a skeptic or a believer), rather than any sort of overall agency "policy".

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby murnut » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:40 pm

Of course, your source could be lying, right?

IC guys sometimes tell stories I have heard.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Postby ryguy » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:06 pm

murnut wrote:Of course, your source could be lying, right?

IC guys sometimes tell stories I have heard.


lol...now there's an understatement!

Unfortunately, rumor has it that UFO guys don't always tell the absolute truth either. Especially where their reputation and fame is on the line.

Fortunately - most legitimate information from Intel sources can be verified. I'm not referring to the silly hoaxter "black-op" Intel "insiders" where nothing can be verified because nothing is true, and the only names provided are fictitous anonymous "sources". I'm talking about real Intel insiders who actually provide names, places, dates and events that can be verified.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron