FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:41 am

Ryan blows the lid off yet another false claim with this latest RU article.
Members who remember the John Callahan / Leslie Kean media hoo-ha from 2009, will be very interested to learn that not everything was as it seemed at the time.

FAA Instructions to Staff on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claims

Great article Ryan =D>
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm


Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby Bloodyhellisthatrue » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:52 pm

Another interesting article. I'm only vaguely familiar with the Japan airlines case and wasn't aware that it was still being squeezed for a story. Good work!
Bloodyhellisthatrue
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:11 pm

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby Gilles F. » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:35 pm

Greetings,
Excellent article, as usual ! Sincerly well done Ryan. Your article have been relayed in France =D>
Cheers,
Gilles.
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:46 pm

Nice article. I was unaware that Macabee was at the meeting. You would think he would be jumping up and down stating that Callahan was not being accurate about the "cover-up". Instead, he simply allowed the story to fester and turn into the story it is today.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby ryguy » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:28 pm

I agree.

In our discussions, he explained it away pretty much. Maybe he was referring to a different meeting...maybe memories are bad, maybe.....

These maybes were why I wanted to talk directly with Callahan to get more specifics about the meeting, but Kean did her best to prevent that.

The coincidence that Ron and Bruce were both at an identical meeting, combined with Kean not following this up before republishing Callahan's claims in her book, made this latest article necessary.

I suspect Bruce has dirt on a number of pro-disclosure proponents that he has chosen not to share with the public, to be honest.
---
"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

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby murnut » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:34 pm

It seems Bruce let's lot's of stuff go...until someone actually asks him.

It is curious that Bruce himself never mentioned he was at the meeting.

But knowing what I've learned over the last few years, nothing really surprises me about ufology anymore.

Ufer's want disclosure, just as long as it doesn't apply to them
"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

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:36 pm

I commented about this on the blog, but it is really frustrating when you know things would be an awful lot clearer if people would just stand up and be counted.

It is something that has been going on forever but that doesn't make it any less annoying. The first example of this I personally saw was with Bill Ryan in the Serpo case. He wouldn't tell anyone Richard Doty was involved because it would cloud the judgement of those reading the information! Duh...
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby Archer17 » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:34 am

Excellent OP Zep. I've had debates elsewhere regarding the JAL "smoking gun" and one of the arguments UFO=ET believers put forth was the "suppression" angle, basically a round-about way of putting ET in the driver's seat, but a common tack used by 'em nevertheless. Your link will be something I'll be glad to share. :wink:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
User avatar
Archer17
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby philliman » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:13 pm

At this point, Callahan’s credentials and story has never actually been independently confirmed. In fact, back in 2007, as we were attempting to verify his claims, we contacted CIA Science Analyst Ron Pandolfi. Ron admitted that both he and Maccabee had in fact attended an FAA meeting like the one Callahan described. However, he did not recall anyone making any statement that the meeting never happened, or that the data should be covered up.

Pandolfi stated, “I don’t recall trying to ‘keep the sighting hushed’ since it was already widely publicized.”

In fact Pandolfi turned over all the data to Maccabee to conduct a full investigation and report (which Maccabee published in 1987).

Pandolfi did say that he recalled John Callahan being present at the meeting, and that all discussion regarding “delaying dissemination of information” was between Bruce and Callahan. This implies, of course, that Callahan could have mistaken Maccabee for a “CIA guy,” when he was actually only there as a private contractor.

Question: Why was Pandolfi present at such a meeting? I thought his metier was/is remote viewing. So why would he attend a meeting which is about an alleged UFO? Or did I got something wrong here?
philliman
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby murnut » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:37 pm

My understanding is that Ron is a physicist or some type of scientist employed by CIA or other similar govt agencies.
"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

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby Access Denied » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:56 am

Zep Tepi wrote:Ryan blows the lid off yet another false claim with this latest RU article.

That's putting it mildly. Definitely worth the wait...

Nice work Andy and Ryan.

I posted a comment on the blog along with a couple of quick questions for Dr. Maccabee.

Looking forward to his response…


P.S. Fixed thread title. (shortened it)
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]

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby ryguy » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:22 pm

philliman wrote:Question: Why was Pandolfi present at such a meeting? I thought his metier was/is remote viewing. So why would he attend a meeting which is about an alleged UFO? Or did I got something wrong here?


As I understand it and from documents that surfaced throughout the years, it seems clear that Ron served in the capacity as a staff physicist for the CIA. Remote Viewing was a brief and minor project, even though it has been over-dramatized by certain writers who will remain unnamed but whose last name is Bekkum. I would say Kit Green was probably far more involved during the RV years, but that's neither here nor there.

He would attend a meeting about UFOs because Pandolfi had the unsavory position of the "keeper of the weird", a position that I believe is not exactly a coveted one at the agency - and from what I understand it is only a part time role that the person is expected to manage in addition to other, more important duties. UFO's fell under that category. However, throughout the years, Ron has managed to find a way to have some fun with the role - as Kit Green once wrote to me in an email, Ron has found a way to "suffer the fools gladly."

Should be no surprise he was at the FAA meeting, and further no surprise that he brought along a Ufologist and handed off all of the data to said Ufologist, because bottom line is that Ron really didn't want anything to do with the case. As far as he was concerned (from what I gather from everything I've read and heard), UFO's are for Ufology, not for the CIA.

-Ryan
---
"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

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby philliman » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:24 pm

Thanks, Ryan and Andy.

ryguy wrote:However, throughout the years, Ron has managed to find a way to have some fun with the role - as Kit Green once wrote to me in an email, Ron has found a way to "suffer the fools gladly."

As far as I can see this seems to apply to every member of the Aviary. They all seem to want to make sure that they get some attention. :P
philliman
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby sentry579 » Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:41 am

But why was BAASS singled out as the point of contact. At least NUFORC got a mention, but how hard would it have been to include their number or nuforc.org, and maybe even mufon.com?

What do you suppose Bigelow's people are doing with these reports?
sentry579
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby James Carlson » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:49 pm

I suspect you might be putting more emphasis on this particular aspect of the issue than it deserves. One of the previous point of contacts for reporting UFOs was NIDS, which was established by Bigelow. When NIDS went bye-bye, they merely put up the other Bigelow POC to replace it. Since than, if I remember correctly, Bigelow has established connections with MUFON to allow reporting through them that would also go to Bigelow, but I don't know whether or not that was ever finalized.

The point to remember is that the change correction the FAA instituted states, “This change corrects one of the organizations to which UFO/unexplained phenomena activity can be reported. NIDS is defunct and has been replaced by BAASS as the proper reporting agency. This change also includes a phone number and e-mail address for BAASS.” They weren't correcting anything else, so there really was little need to include contact data for anybody else. It doens't mean that there are now no other avenues to report UFOs -- only that the contact information for this one has changed.

Primarily, what the FAA is communicating is the same thing the Department of Defense was trying to make clear in 1969-70: "we don't care about UFOs; we don't want you to report them to us; use these offices instead if you think that the UFO report needs to be aired that badly; and if you think that anything related to the incident you want to report is dangerous, or has resulted or could result in an injurious act that requires more immediate attention, then call the police, because it's not our job, and we don't want to screw around with it."

The important facts of this story are self-explanatory. John Callahan lied about the meeting he attended, and multiple witnesses have confirmed his lies. The fact that he came up through the Disclosure movement is not surprising. They are a network of people who have apparently decided that 60-years of failure in regard to UFO investigation has resulted in nothing, because the Department of Defense refuses to declassify the UFO materials they supposedly have. The only way anybody will ever force full disclosure is by fomenting a massive public response to demand it. Anything less will fail. In order to create that massive public response, it's become necessary for them to lie about it, to frighten people into demanding the disclosure that their requests over the years have failed to achieve. Being honest will not get them anywhere, so dishonesty is the only thing they have left. They sure as Hell don't have a valid case to make, or they would have done so.

This strategy has the tacit support of most of the best organized UFO proponent organizations, including MUFON, NICAP, CUFON and others. If it did not, those organizations would not be expressing such strong support for many of these truly pathetic attempts to link UFOs with nuclear weapons caches throughout the world. It is a remarkably obvious attempt to promote paranoia and fear in a populace that has already decided it doesn't give a damn, a clear position held since the Department of Defense categorically denied that UFOs present any valid threats whatsoever, and represent merely a sociological response to the cultural expressions of the 20th century: science fiction, literature, the Cold War, secret agents, Vietnam, rock and roll, the generation gap, comic books, super heroes, a world-wide communications system that tends to focus on the strange and the wondrous and the unique while ignoring any details establishing medioocrity, and a host of others, many of which can be accessed directly via the History Channel and Comcast on-demand television.

People like Leslie Kean and De Void of ethics Billy Cox call themselves "journalists" and report on only those aspects of the issues that support the claims of these same people, making very clear their own agendas, while others like Stanton Friedman and Paul Kimball try to establish reputations for themselves as highly intelligent analysts of truly mysterious phenomena while ignoring every detail of their own work that's built on top of the same lies and insulting rhetoric adopted by Greer and his ilk. The point is two-fold: make money and stir up public opinion sufficient to create concern where no such concern will grow naturally. They have been doing this for a long time, and they have not been hiding these intentions, nor the vapidity of their own work and and conclusions.

Take, for instance, the following points into account (and this is merely one example among many you can dig up for yourself by simply doing a little research, most of which can be accomplished by following the same stepping-stones of fact-finding and interview these people claim to have already done themselves): these people claim to have investigated in full the UFOs that allegedly took out an entire flight of missiles in March 1967. Not one of them bothered to talk to the commander of that flight of missiles. They repeat errors of fact ad infinitum without once trying to verify any of it. Leslie Kean's book makes very clear her inability or refusal to confirm the details of reports, and the UFO proponents world-wide laud her for it. These are proven faults in her work and she ignores them. She's not the only one.

Timothy Good does the same thing, and he's patted on the back and given another advance on a book fuill of worthless crap for doing so. In his "Above Top Secret" he makes ridiculous claims that he never once attempted to verify, all on the word of Raymond Fowler, a man who assessed every UFO discussed in his presence as factual, at least two of which -- by his own admission -- were never actually seen or reported by anyone. They don't even qualify as rumors! Timothy Good discussed them, however, and did so because he found "no reason to doubt" that they even occurred exactly as Fowler wrote them down! He didn't even try to talk to a single witness, let alone confirm anything, and yet on the basis of those claims alone, NICAP added two more UFO reports to their ongoing record of UFO sightings. They were immediately tied to nuclear weapons links that didn't exist and are now a part of the record they publically insist proves the necessity for full disclosure. One of those two incidents was located at Alpha Flight on Malmstrom AFB. It has NEVER been associated with UFOs by ANYBODY except Raymond Fowler, and the guy that supposedly told him about it is dead. Fowler was unable to establish any of this so-called "UFO report" as having any truth to it at all, and he was actually there when it allegedly occurred. He wasnt even able to confirm that it was rumor -- he found nothing! And yet, Timothy Good and NICAP and God knows how many other groups who keep these records have found "no reason to doubt" their veracity as actual events.

These people, Kean and Cox included, are not journalists -- they are jokes. Billy Cox published an entire article discussing how my father's claims differed from my own, and implied that we were somehow at odds as a result of it. He also refused to discuss his assertions with either my father or me, didn't ask us about any of it, and made assumptions on the basis of his own poor investigation, reaching conclusions on the basis of faulty information that I pointed out to him and that he agreed was improperly assessed. The article is still on the internet and can be found quite easily. All of my comments and his rejoinders after the fact were, however, removed, and are no longer available for access by researchers or casual readers, which means none of the errors these hacks are willing to publish are ever corrected. They don't care about the truth, and thery are not honest in relation to their claims, which is what happens when people try to establish fiction as fact. They create a unified structure of opinion by editing claims after the fact, just as they develop and evolve the testimony of individuals by group discussion, making various claims match with other claims after the fact to suggest a clarity of confirmed associations and incidents that doesn't actually exist.

Ryan's article referred to above also establishes pretty clearly that the lies continue and are repeated over and over again without a shred of dignified assessment by those trying to foment a national dispute. A group affiliated with Greer's disclosure movement -- Paradigm Research Group -- keeps putting up petitions on the White House "We the People" website, most recently the one stating, "WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO ask Defense Secretary Panetta to respond to mounting evidence for nuclear weapons tampering by extraterrestrial craft." They need to achieve a goal of 25,000 signatures by April 24, 2012. As of today, they have 742.

Paradigm Research Group has also stated, "PRG recognizes it is unlikely any future Disclosure petitions submitted to 'We the People' will achieve a White House response. Nevertheless, for as long as the 'We the People' project is open PRG will make sure there is at least one or two Disclosure petitions resident at the site. Why? The White House website is a powerful showcase for any issue. There is heavy traffic. The media can choose to jump into the Disclosure issue at any time." This is just another attempt to attract public concern by manufacturing an issue that doesn't stand very well on its own, a strategy that in this case relies solely on the research of Robert Hastings, a man who has egregiously lied and fostered dishonest attempts to establish those lies as truth. This man, a proven fraud, is the only resesarcher PRG has linked to in this new petetion, and they are gambling that there aren't many people in the world who are willing to put much effort into researching Hastings' methods. Anybody willing to conduct the research for themselves will find that he's a very blatant liar willing to make any claims whatsoever to press this issue, so PRG is basically relying on the laziness of UFO proponents to bear the fruit of what they hope to be a great many signatures on their petition. At 742 thus far, it's equally apparent that they've backed the wrong horse in this little race.

I got off-point a bit, I suppose (I've been told I jump from one point to another with little warning, so go with that, I guess), because the primary point in regard to your question above is the fact that the document being analyzed is a change-correct of a prior document. "NIDS is defunct and has been replaced by BAASS", a maintenance document that shows, to some extent (and has been confirmed as well by the actual witnesses Ryan interviewed), the duplicity and the deceit being practiced on a near-daily basis by the disclosure groups trying to create from very little an issue that simply does not exist. And they are trying to do it by suggesting motives and methods adopted by the government that have not been proven, trying to establish a long-standing practice of cover-up and silence that also does not exist. The only difference between today's practice and those utilized by associated groups in the 1960s and 70s is the fact that they are now willing lie about it, to actively practice deceit and defamation in order to reach the achievement of their goals.

The whole FAA scenario that these individuals have promoted is ludicrous. Since when does the CIA have the authority to order individuals in other government offices to do anything, let alone act as if a meeting that took place did not actually take place? They don't have anywhere near that kind of authority, and unless foreign nationals are involved, they wouldn't have the need to even request an act like that. They would have no need to offer input to the FAA, and they have their own scientific study groups to conduct their own research, so they certainly wouldn't hold authority over the study groups established by other agencies. None of this resides anywhere near their mission, let alone their cultural values. Their mission is the collection of foreign intelligence, and they don't interfere in domestic affairs: "By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA's procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s."

They don't order the FBI or the FAA to do anything, and they would never attempt to establish such authority, since it's illegal. This whole scenario that Callahan invented is just more irreverent noise intended to stoke paranoia and dispute. In my opinion, it's no different than the crap the Nazi's were trying to pull in the 1930s and 1940-41 to keep Americans from interfering in Europe. It is manipulation of public opinion that has no moral or ethical character to it at all, and these people should be ashamed of themselves for attempting such an obviously deceitful act. Fortunately, none of them are tremendously intelligent, and those that are -- such as Stanton Friedman and Timothy Good -- tend to limit themselves to attacking the character of "debunkers", or simply collecting their royalties for the garbage they've managed thus far to publish in the name of "open discussion". They are not fooling enough people to take advantage of in the politically viable way they want, but they are making money at it, and this does allow them the freedom to continue making such noise. It's easy enough to reach back to the early 1980s for a receptive and fitting metaphor to describe them: they are the "Butthole Surfers" of modern "science-oriented media" discourse. Do you remember back when "Omni" magazine tried to merge fiction with fact in an effort to persuade their audience to erase such arrogant labels as "fact" and "fiction"? The disclosure movement has topped them. Not only do they consider such labels as "fact" and "fiction" arrogant, they insist that any attempt to define a thing on the basis of "true" or "false" is an insult to a natural world that seems to thrive on the ambiguity of definition. If they did not, they would make more effort to separate what is true from what is patently false.

Not that any of it matters. The number "742" is a fitting definition for the character of their impotence, and natural selection will continue to whittle away at the attention they receive. Give them your money, if you wish. It will only make Greer and cronies a little richer, and will do nothing for the cause they profess to support.

As to what Bigelow's people are doing with the UFO reports they receive, the answer seems clear: nothing. They continue to hope, I imagine, that something will come of it, some statistical measure they can use to their advantage, perhaps. Maybe some day, a sociological study will use these reports for something, but right now they represent little more than convincing evidence that people tend to make a lot of mistakes when they try to define those things they can't immediately identify.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron