Former CIA official Victor Marchetti speaks about CIA's UFO policy
Al Grund
<bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
Victor Marchetti is a former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of
the CIA. In a magazine called "Second Look", Vol 1, No 7, Wash DC, May 1979,
pp. 2-7, in an article entitled "How the CIA views the UFO phenomenon",
Marchetti wrote:
"...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with other
national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from
the general public. The purpose of the international conspiracy is to
maintain a workable stability among the nations of the world and for them,
in turn, to retain institutional control over their respective populsions.
Thus, for these governments to admit that there are beings from outer
space... with mentalities and technological capabilities obviously far
superior to ours, could, once fully perceived by the average person, erode
the foundations of the Earth's traditional power structure. Political and
legal systems, religions, economic and social institutions could all soon
become meaningless in the mind of the public. The national oligarchical
establishments, even civilization as we know it, could collapse into anarchy.
Such extreme conclusions are not necessarily valid, but they probably
accurately reflect the fears of the 'ruling classes' of the major nations,
whose leaders (particularly those in the intelligence business) have always
advocated excessive governmental secrecy as being necessary to preserve
'national security.'"
What Marchetti says is perfectly consistent with the Brookings Institute
research of the late 1960s which said that contact would be dangerously
disruptive, since superior civilizations demolish inferior civilizations
throughout human history, either violently or at least culturally.
Marchetti also said that UFOs were not discussed usually because they were
"very sensitive activities". He had no explicit knowledge, but he said the
debunking attempts were known by him to be the classic hallmarks of a
cover-up. He also was intrigued by the fact that he knew they had globally
dispersed UFO collection facilities through the clandestine services.
He thought cover-up is further implied by the fact that few of those have
ever been released. He also mentions in the article that he had heard some
rumors in high places about the possession of extraterrestrial debris.
Another highly placed rumor was in regard to the National Security Agency's
detection by SIGINT of 'strange signals' that had been attributed to
extraterrestrial origin - and this was when the NSA denied having any
information or involvement with UFOs until they were sued in the early 1980s
under the FOIA and won exemption, but still conceded having some information.
Finally, he makes the point that an international agreement between
superpowers like the USA and former USSR would have been possible because
the nations' intelligence communities have been cooperative in the past when
the benefits were mutual. In fact, his words are corroborated by the
testimony of former Soviet military official Colonel Boris Sokolov, former
director of a Soviet UFO research program in the 1970s. In an on-camera
interview with journalist George Knapp, Sokolov says that the USSR decided
UFOs were a unique phenomenon and could only be extraterrestrial. He also
said that communications with the CIA revealed that the CIA had reached the
same conclusion.
--
Brian Zeiler
Pretty devastating stuff. Looks like you've cracked another big coverup,
Brian. And to think everyone else overlooked it even after publication in
the prestigious journal "Second Look" some 17 years ago. I smell a
Pulizter. You really should publish. Is this what you spend your time on,
reading crackpot journals not worth the paper they are printed on? Really
sad.
Al
--
Al Grund
agr...@biotechresources.com
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"
Brian Zeiler
>Pretty devastating stuff. Looks like you've cracked another big coverup,
>Brian. And to think everyone else overlooked it even after publication in
>the prestigious journal "Second Look" some 17 years ago. I smell a
>Pulizter. You really should publish. Is this what you spend your time on,
>reading crackpot journals not worth the paper they are printed on? Really
>sad.
Heh heh heh. Thank you for illustrating for the UFO agnostics just how
the logic works in contemporary skeptophrenic delusions. A common
question from UFO debunkers is "Where are the leaks? Surely there should
be leaks!" That is correct. There are leaks.
I gave you the words of a former Executive Assistant to the Deputy
Director of the CIA, one of the very top executive positions at the very
top of the CIA, and you could not debunk it. Instead, you flaunted the
typical skeptopathic fallacies:
1) Ridicule. Time-honored tactic of the substance-challenged in
debates.
2) Ad hominem argumentation against me, the poster. As time-honored in
debunkery circles as ridicule.
3) Sweeping, unsubstantiated attack on journalistic credibility. You
gave no substantiation for your claim about "Second Look" being a
"crackpot journal", but rather labeled it as such in order to discredit
the source. This way, you can circularly conclude that the article must
be bunk because it was published in a journal that published a UFO
article; since only crackpot journals take CIA involvement
with UFOs seriously, this must be a crackpot journal. Therefore, both
the article and the magazine are bunk. Of course, you ignore my
citations of documents released by the CIA under the Freedom of
Information Act that detail explicitly the levels of interest in UFOs
that are at variance with their public pronouncements, such as the
reference to "CIA UFO experts" a full 23 years after they were supposedly
done with UFOs.
Try again, Al. This time please share with us what information you have
gathered that "Second Look" lacks credibility. Are you saying that
Marchetti, a longtime critic of the CIA in varied aspects since his
departure from his position, is lying? That the magazine invented the
entire interview? Illustrate for us the pathology of debunkery. And
this time be more specific.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
> Great, another conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I know. Sucks.
> In the absence of hard data or real evidence, I can't take this as
>any more than one persons opinion, and it goes in the bin with 'the
>earth is flat' dreck.
I agree. However, there is hard data and real evidence. I would suggest
you find yourself the USAF's Project Bluebook files, the Bluebook Special
Report #14, the USAF's Condon Committee studies of radar-visual cases,
and the works of atmospheric physicist Dr. James McDonald of the
University of Arizona. McDonald studied radar-visual cases generously
provided by our own military.
The military and intelligence communities have given a great deal of UFO
data to the public. There is no "conspiracy". There is, rather, an
information asymmetry. The CIA, NSA, NORAD, and USAF admit having more
than they have released, and their behind-the-scenes behaviors as
revealed in internal memoranda reflect an acknowledgment of the existence
of UFOs. You can call it a "conspiracy", but it's better described as a
reluctance to deal with the subject publicly for several obvious reasons.
>> [...]
>> He had no explicit knowledge, but he said the
>>debunking attempts were known by him to be the classic hallmarks of a
>>cover-up.
>
> This is a very sneaky and dishonest attack... claiming that
>'debunking' = 'coverup'. In my books, debunking means asking for
>evidence to back up a claim, and then tossing the crap when there's no
>evidence to support it. Something which does have evidence to support
>it by definition cannot be debunked.
You are mistaken. What you describe is "skepticism". Debunking is a
religious/dogmatic viewpoint that distorts and discards nonconforming
evidence. For instance, UFO debunkers dismiss radar-visual cases with
very poor science. They think that temperature inversions can cause
echoes on radars that are solid and that make angular maneuvers. They
think that meteors can travel at 4,000 feet in the atmosphere without a
shock wave detonation. They think that character assassination as the
last "terrestrial explanation" available is appropriate with no evidence
to support their claims. They think that the military fakes their own
photos and films of UFOs that defy attempts at analysis. They also think
that two GCI radars can corroborate each other, an aerial radar lock-on,
and ground and air visual contacts with cross-corroborations of the
radars without a physical object. This is delusion. When you say
"something which does have evidence to support it by definition cannot be
debunked", your implicit premise is objectivity on behalf of the
debunkers rather than fanatical dogmatic defense of belief system.
Get yourself some radar-visual cases and read the analyses by physicists
and astronomers like Drs. Hynek and McDonald. Read the data supplied by
our own USAF. Your ignorance can be cured, fortunately.
> Is it so evil to ask for evidence to prove an incredible claim?
Of course not. I'm giving you evidence. You obviously demonstrate a
total vacuum of knowledge regarding the evidence I cite of incidents
released by our military that are highly suggestive of physical objects
under intelligent control exhibiting anomalous propulsion systems. You
also demonstrate factual impoverishment with respect to internal
memoranda released under the Freedom of Information Act that explicitly
prove beyond any argument that the USAF and CIA are as interested in UFOs
now as they were in 1947.
>Granted, a 'coverup' will remove all the evidence (more conspiracy
>theories), but that's no reason to slam skeptics when they ask for facts.
I agree with you, Alan. It should be a good sign to know that we agree
in theory here. The problem is the obvious polarity in our levels of
research effort expended.
>> [...]
>> In an on-camera
>>interview with journalist George Knapp, Sokolov says that the USSR decided
>>UFOs were a unique phenomenon and could only be extraterrestrial.
>
> This is the same USSR that claimed Latvia, etc. had ALWAYS been a
>part of the Soviet Union? That printed official government lies in a
>newspaper called Pravda (Truth)? The old guard USSR had a hard time
>distinguishing between reality as it existed, and reality as they
>wanted it to be.
Um, that's nice... however, it's pretty irrelevant. Even the present
Russian National Security Advisor confirmed Col. Sokolov's statements.
Sokolov also lugged out an enormous binder full of data, drawings, and
conclusions on their studies. They've had identical UFO incidents at
nuclear bases and hoverings over nuclear silos that have also been
documented by NORAD. Call the NORAD Office of Public Information and
request that they send you all declassified documents dealing with UFO
incidents at nuclear bases.
>> He also
>>said that communications with the CIA revealed that the CIA had reached the
>>same conclusion.
>
> Hearsay. Propaganda. Need I say more?
No, you need not say more to exemplify your paucity of knowledge of CIA
involvement with UFOs. There's a handy little tool called the Freedom of
Information Act which has induced the release of many of the CIA's UFO
documents. Documents from 1976, a full 23 years after the CIA was
supposedly done with UFOs, mention "UFO propulsion" in reference to a
scientific symposium and "CIA UFO experts". The USAF has also released a
shocking memo that reveals that the USAF's Project Bluebook was basically
a public relations exercise because the best cases -- the ones that
jeopardize "national security" -- were routed around Bluebook to a
special office in the Pentagon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the USAF
and CIA *lied* about their UFO research in terms of scope, effort, and
conclusions. This is a *FACT* that anybody with half a brain and
functional limbs can verify for themselves. Call it "conspiracy", but
that doesn't change the facts that have been admitted.
> Do any 'secret government memos' exist? perhaps the Access to
>Information act can be used here.
Heh. This proves beyond all doubt that you arguing emotionally and not
from a solid knowledge base. See the above paragraph for Freedom of
Information Act document information. We seem to agree on the
requirement of evidence, but apparently your grasp of knowledge on the
subject matter you so vociferously debunk is tenuous at best.
--
Brian Zeiler
J.Wa...@stud.tue.nl
>>"...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
>>extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with other
>>national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from
>>the general public.
>
> Great, another conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy thoery? The government has performed radiation tests on the
population too. Does that mean that the government is lying and that
the tests never took place simply because in your mind such a "conspi-
racy" theory can't be true? No, this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is
plain secrecy to protect national security.
> In the absence of hard data or real evidence, I can't take this as
>any more than one persons opinion, and it goes in the bin with 'the
>earth is flat' dreck.
Nonsense. It is amazing that the skeptic evaluates the evidence regarding
UFOs in a complete absence of knowledge regarding the phenomena. In such a
situation, how can you decide whether the evidence is false, inadequate,
nonexistent or missing? You can't. Therefore, your opinion is worth nothing.
>theories), but that's no reason to slam skeptics when they ask for facts.
The skeptics should start looking for the facts themselves instead relying
on their skeptical enquirer which they trust so much. It seems that to the
skeptics, evidence only exists if it is published in one of their magazines
or if it is acknowledged by one of their spokesmen.
> Do any 'secret government memos' exist? perhaps the Access to
>Information act can be used here.
This proves my point. Many government documents including CIA memos have been
released under the FOIA act. The problem for you is that the documents which
refute the skeptics' position have never been published in the skeptical en-
quirer. I'm sure Brian will fill you in on the facts regarding those documents.
Richard Dolan
>Victor Marchetti is a former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of
>the CIA. In a magazine called "Second Look", Vol 1, No 7, Wash DC, May 1979,
>pp. 2-7, in an article entitled "How the CIA views the UFO phenomenon",
>Marchetti wrote:
>"...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
>extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with other
>national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from
>the general public.
Hello, Brian--
Thanks for posting Marchetti's remarks--I was not aware of them. Having read
Marchetti's classic book, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, with great
interest, I find him to be highly credible. To this day, of course, the
Company has succeeded in keeping significant portions of his book blacked
out, and naturally has an interest in discrediting him. But I think that's
hard to do, considering the kind of information and level of sophistication
his book offers.
I found it interesting how one respondant to your post used nothing other
than sarcasm to try to discredit it. There are, indeed, many 20th century
scientific reasons *not* to believe in the ET hypothesis concerning the UFO
phenomenon. However, those reasons do not constitute a shut case, since
enough high-level (and not-so-high-level) information continues to come out
that forces one to continue considering it. Remarks like those of Marchetti,
or General Nathan Twining, or Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoeter, etc. etc. etc.
Those people who continually attack *your* credibility really need to
address this issue: why time and again individuals who themselves have high
credibility have taken the ET hypothesis seriously, and even at times, as
in the case of Astronaut Gordon Cooper, argued for it. Why? Are they
delusional? Were they fed misinformation? Were they just bored?
One might plausibly remain skeptical about the ET hypothesis, but (a) I
don't see how one can with justice dismiss it out of hand, and (b) to
dismiss it requires more than half-assed sarcasm. There are serious people
saying serious things about this issue, and any refutation must include a
way to address that.
By the way, I *do* enjoy your posts. No sarcasm.
Take care,
Rich Dolan
Alan Dekok
>the CIA. In a magazine called "Second Look", Vol 1, No 7, Wash DC, May 1979,
>pp. 2-7, in an article entitled "How the CIA views the UFO phenomenon",
>Marchetti wrote:
>
>"...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
>extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with other
>national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from
>the general public.
Great, another conspiracy theory.
In the absence of hard data or real evidence, I can't take this as
any more than one persons opinion, and it goes in the bin with 'the
earth is flat' dreck.
> [...]
> He had no explicit knowledge, but he said the
>debunking attempts were known by him to be the classic hallmarks of a
>cover-up.
This is a very sneaky and dishonest attack... claiming that
'debunking' = 'coverup'. In my books, debunking means asking for
evidence to back up a claim, and then tossing the crap when there's no
evidence to support it. Something which does have evidence to support
it by definition cannot be debunked.
Is it so evil to ask for evidence to prove an incredible claim?
Granted, a 'coverup' will remove all the evidence (more conspiracy
theories), but that's no reason to slam skeptics when they ask for facts.
> [...]
> In an on-camera
>interview with journalist George Knapp, Sokolov says that the USSR decided
>UFOs were a unique phenomenon and could only be extraterrestrial.
This is the same USSR that claimed Latvia, etc. had ALWAYS been a
part of the Soviet Union? That printed official government lies in a
newspaper called Pravda (Truth)? The old guard USSR had a hard time
distinguishing between reality as it existed, and reality as they
wanted it to be.
> He also
>said that communications with the CIA revealed that the CIA had reached the
>same conclusion.
Hearsay. Propaganda. Need I say more?
Do any 'secret government memos' exist? perhaps the Access to
Information act can be used here.
Alan DeKok.
--
"Even more like you, perhaps, than you are yourself."
http://www.physics.carleton.ca/~aland/
Brian Zeiler
>I found it interesting how one respondant to your post used nothing other
>than sarcasm to try to discredit it.
Yes, that's contemporary "skepticism" for you.
There are, indeed, many 20th century
>scientific reasons *not* to believe in the ET hypothesis concerning the UFO
>phenomenon.
Actually, I find these theoretical reasons rife with dogma and short on
lucidity. We don't know what the likelihood of extraterrstrial
intelligence is, but increasing evidence supports it, including the
knowledge that extraterrestrial amino acids are plentiful and the recent
discoveries of extrasolar planets, some of which are within 35 light
years with temperatures conducive to liquid water. Furthermore, we have
no idea how feasible interstellar travel is, but our theory still
suggests the possibility of 10% c travel, which would mean a civilization
developing a billion years ago could have flooded the galaxy by now.
That's why scientists like Fermi and Tipler suggested that if aliens
exist, we should have seen them by now because they should have populated
the galaxy. The only reason scientists reject the body of evidence is
because they don't act the way aliens are *supposed* to act, i.e.,
landing on the White House lawn, shaking hands with Congressmen for
photo-ops, and doling out their technology for us and curing our
diseases. I haven't heard one good argument as to why it is in the
self-interest of extraterrestrials to introduce themselves.
However, those reasons do not constitute a shut case, since
>enough high-level (and not-so-high-level) information continues to come out
>that forces one to continue considering it. Remarks like those of Marchetti,
>or General Nathan Twining, or Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoeter, etc. etc. etc.
And let's not forget the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Dr. Hermann
Oberth (father of modern rocketry), and Dr. Robert Sarbacher. In fact,
during the massive wave of UFO sightings in New Mexico from 1947 through
1949, all the top scientists at White Sands and Los Alamos concluded that
they had to be extraterrestrial, including the site commanders and top
personnel. Even the balloon people from General Mills shared this
opinion. New Mexico was swamped with the sightings, and it's no surprise
-- New Mexico was the place just two years prior where atomic bombs were
detonated, sending streams of neutrinos out into space. It was also the
most technologically sophisticated area on this planet in terms of
rocketry, communications, and other weaponries. Any interested nearby
civilization would flock to New Mexico to see what the hell was going on
with the leaking neutrinos and intense radio activity. The timing and
location of the initial waves is no accident, and the caliber of
personnel who endorsed the legitimacy of the extraterrestrial hypothesis
cannot be ignored.
>By the way, I *do* enjoy your posts. No sarcasm.
Thank you.
--
Brian Zeiler
Dr. Richard Frager
debunkers, or what's left of them. Even now, according to the latest
polls, only less than 10% of the populace feel that the
Military/Corporate/Secret Government is not covering up the truth. Or
to put it another way, over 90% of Americans acknowledge that this
faction of the National Security Machine is engaged in the concealment
of the Facts regarding the alien presence.
Only the desperate and despondent UFO debunkers and their controllers
are doing the best to obfuscate the truth. May God and Reptilians have
mercy on their souls. They'll need it!
Again, we have to say Brian Zeiler is right, for the trillionth time!
Thank you a quadrillion times!
By the way, if NASA is underestimating the presence of life on other
planets by a factor of 100, that would mean that over 1 trillion planets
have life on them. WOW!
Dean Adams
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>"...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
>extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with other
>national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from
>the general public.
Wow, there's news! Like we haven't heard that line of BS before.
Dr. Richard Frager
that, don't do it at all. If you need some tips on UFO Debunking, "we"
will help you. You even embarrassed the entire contingent of your
fellow D.E.B.U.N.K.E.R.S.
Sorry, no time to figure out what that acronym means.
Do you have any ideas Al?
George Kambic
I don't understand how you could doubt this conspiracy!
This information has been controlled from the first day by
the CIA, the NSA, the trilateral Commission and the
National Enquirer. Only they know the *real* truth.
George Kambic
gxka...@bme.ri.ccf.org
Brian Zeiler
>Wow, there's news! Like we haven't heard that line of BS before.
Another debunker with a vague, substanceless slur. What's sad is that it
doesn't get any better than what's been seen in this thread.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
>I don't understand how you could doubt this conspiracy!
>This information has been controlled from the first day by
>the CIA, the NSA, the trilateral Commission and the
>National Enquirer. Only they know the *real* truth.
Amazing. This is too good. Now we see the debunkery shift from vague
slurs back to the original tactic, ridicule and strawman fallacies.
Here we see a fallacious parallel drawn with the Trilateral Commission
and the National Enquirer, neither of whom have any known officially
sanctioned involvement with the UFO subject. Then the poster proceeds to
demolish this strawman of ridiculous ideas through ridicule.
Please, keep it coming so you can illustrate just how vaporous the
debunkers really are.
--
Brian Zeiler
Andrea Chen
>Here we see a fallacious parallel drawn with the Trilateral Commission
>and the National Enquirer, neither of whom have any known officially
>sanctioned involvement with the UFO subject.
Yes they do! It is a well known fact that the National Enquirer and
other supermarket weeklies are trying to spread faith in aliens. Why
are you trying to cover up this information Brian?
Jim Rogers
>Victor Marchetti is a former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of
>the CIA. In a magazine called "Second Look", Vol 1, No 7, Wash DC, May 1979,
>pp. 2-7, in an article entitled "How the CIA views the UFO phenomenon",
>
>"...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
>extraterrestrial beings, ....
Perhaps? Perhaps? The former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of
the CIA said "perhaps"? You mean he *really* doesn't know, but is guessing.
So much for your CIA authorities!
Jim
Jim Rogers
...
>By the way, if NASA is underestimating the presence of life on other
>planets by a factor of 100, that would mean that over 1 trillion planets
>have life on them. WOW!
And what if they're overestimating the ubiquity of life by a factor of
one trillion?
Jim Rogers
...
>I gave you the words of a former Executive Assistant to the Deputy
>Director of the CIA, one of the very top executive positions at the very
>top of the CIA, and you could not debunk it. Instead, you flaunted the
>typical skeptopathic fallacies:
"Executive assistant." Is that a fancy word for "secretary"?
Dean Adams
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>Wow, there's news! Like we haven't heard that line of BS before.
>Another debunker with a vague, substanceless slur.
Nothing vague there, and it is of course the wide-eyed gullible
UFO believers who are the masters of substanceless fantasy.
> What's sad is that it doesn't get any better than
> what's been seen in this thread.
Yes, that is a sad reflection of the empty storytelling that
is the sole foundation of your lunatic fringe belief system.
Jim Rogers
>Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps? Perhaps? The former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of
>>the CIA said "perhaps"? You mean he *really* doesn't know, but is guessing.
>
>"inside" information as the executive assistant to the dep. director; the
>research was supposedly done through the Science and Technology
>Directorate. The only executive that would need to know about it would
>be the Director with the possibility of the Deputy Director. Not
>Marchetti.
And if Marchetti didn't know *for sure* that the CIA had information that
we had been visited by ETs, what makes you think that *you* can know?
Jim
Brian Zeiler
>Perhaps? Perhaps? The former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of
>the CIA said "perhaps"? You mean he *really* doesn't know, but is guessing.
Oh, geez. Get a clue, Jim. Marchetti would not have had access to
"inside" information as the executive assistant to the dep. director; the
research was supposedly done through the Science and Technology
Directorate. The only executive that would need to know about it would
be the Director with the possibility of the Deputy Director. Not
Marchetti.
The point was that Marchetti knew a great deal about CIA covert
activities and knew how cover-ups worked -- that's why it's interesting
that he said the top people above him *acted* as though there were some
cover-up or at least a reluctance to deal with the issue openly with the
public. His comments reflect an experienced official's impression with
CIA behavior that was consistent with past cover-ups known to him, and
that the CIA's top officials behaved as though there were, at the least,
a serious information asymmetry between the CIA and the public.
So, your point is really quite irrelevant.
--
Brian Zeiler
Bill Peterson
about his book, and the legal battles with the CIA censors. Sections of
his book were excised; he did seem like someone trying to make money,
but his knowledge of some internal CIA operations is unquestioned. As for
UFO's, the information is classified extremely high, as documented by
several people. Marchetti had no "need to know", however his ability
to perceive the standard operations (debunking, disinformation, propaganda,
etc) in the UFO field is an interesting fact. Certainly consistent with
the government agencies keeping information secret. Of course, we KNOW
that the government is keeping UFO data secret, just look at some of the
released FOIA documents, all blacked out except the page number!
BP
--
Disclaimer: ididn'tdoitnobodysawmeyoucan'tproveathing!
Brian Zeiler
>"Executive assistant." Is that a fancy word for "secretary"?
No.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
>And if Marchetti didn't know *for sure* that the CIA had information that
>we had been visited by ETs, what makes you think that *you* can know?
Why are you asking such silly questions?? Marchetti never claimed to
"know", nor do I claim to "know" that the CIA has *significant*
information. He had definite suspicions because he had personally
witnessed the UFO-related behavior of the CIA that he found consistent
with past CIA cover-ups that he was aware of (and Lord knows there have
been plenty).
The CIA, NSA, and NORAD freely admit having UFO documents that are
exempt from Freedom of Information Act disclosure. Their arguments about
"sources and methods" being compromised are pure crap, since they can
black out those areas. As far as ET information in addition to UFO
information, a heavy circumstantial case can be built based on leaks like
Marchetti as well as the fact that there is plenty of evidence from
radar-visual cases of physical objects under intelligent control that
have technology we cannot attain. CIA interest in NICAP was
well-documented and so was their infiltration of this esteemed UFO group
by former CIA Director Hillenkoetter and Psychological Warfare Director
Col. Joseph Bryan. You seem to think it's pure coincidence, but the fact
of the matter is that nobody could know more than Hillenkoetter about the
UFO issue. When he joined the group after his directorship, he fed
disinformation and led everybody after the USAF while Bryan made sure
that NICAP transformed from a government critic to a sighting database
while ousting Keyhoe. Of course, the CIA's admission in 1976 of having
"CIA UFO experts" is also suggestive that they haven't been honest about
their interest.
Soviet declassification of much of their research and conclusions
on UFOs revealed that the USSR concluded extraterrestrial origin and said
that the CIA reached the same conclusion. They also said the CIA and KGB
cooperated on some research, exactly what Marchetti said in a quote that
I don't think I included in the original post. If the subject were
anything but UFOs, people would find this interesting. Sure enough, CIA
behavior certainly corroborates this testimony. And let's not forget
that the CIA and KGB recruit the top scientists, not crackpots. Don't
confuse bureacracy with scientific/technological intelligence. Too bad
the CIA and KGB didn't have "experts" like Jim Rogers to steer them away
from "pseudoscience".
--
Brian Zeiler
Allen Thomson
>Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>And if Marchetti didn't know *for sure* that the CIA had information that
>>we had been visited by ETs, what makes you think that *you* can know?
>
>Why are you asking such silly questions?? Marchetti never claimed to
>"know", nor do I claim to "know" that the CIA has *significant*
>information. He had definite suspicions because he had personally
>witnessed the UFO-related behavior of the CIA that he found consistent
>with past CIA cover-ups that he was aware of (and Lord knows there have
>been plenty).
[snip]
>Brian Zeiler
Ahem. Marchetti still lives in Northern Virginia (Vienna/Oakton). Why
not call him up and see if he'd be willing to say what he currently
thinks about the matter? (As one practicioner of the art calls it, this
is ASKINT: pick up the phone and ask.)
Brian Zeiler
>Ahem. Marchetti still lives in Northern Virginia (Vienna/Oakton). Why
>not call him up and see if he'd be willing to say what he currently
>thinks about the matter? (As one practicioner of the art calls it, this
>is ASKINT: pick up the phone and ask.)
Sounds like a good idea.
--
Brian Zeiler
Scott A. Beasley
>
> Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >"...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
> >national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from
> >the general public.
>
Wow, there's news! Like we haven't heard those words from Dean before.
I think we could all save Dean a lot of trouble if every posting could just be appended with the
expected followup from Dean Adams. Here's an example post:
--
Saw the TLC special on Roswell this evening. Thought it had some credible witnesses...
ObDeanAdams: Wow, there's news! Like we haven't heard that line of BS before.
It's easy! I suggest everyone play...
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~******~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Scott A. Beasley ***_******_ __ _ |
| Senior Software Engineer ===//=/\**//=/- )==//= |
| Inter-National Research Institute {==//=//\\//=//||==//== |
| 804-249-1235 x423 =//=//==\/*//=||=//=== |
| s...@inri.com ********* |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
Brian Zeiler
>On Sun, 10 Mar 1996 21:52:28 -0500, "Scott A. Beasley" <s...@inri.com>
>wrote:
>>|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~******~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
>>| Scott A. Beasley ***_******_ __ _ |
>>| Senior Software Engineer ===//=/\**//=/- )==//= |
>>| Inter-National Research Institute {==//=//\\//=//||==//== |
>>| 804-249-1235 x423 =//=//==\/*//=||=//=== |
>>| s...@inri.com ********* |
>>`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
>
>Yeah? What kind of "international research" is that?
>CIA is a client perhaps?
Welcome to the club, Scott! Anybody who disagrees with Kelly's
economically ignorant radical economics is a CIA plant. Anybody who
works at a company with the words "research" or "institute" is obviously
a CIA plant with a CIA contracter. Mike Kelly's houseplants are bugged
and his phones are tapped. We'll discuss this further at the next
meeting.
--
Brian Zeiler
Scott A. Beasley
Hey, cool! I missed Kelly's post, but I'm impressed with his amazing
discernment. I mean, to be able to see right past the obvious religious
significance of the acronym (a contrivance of our original company president)
and to delve right into the invisible secret truths about our cabal with the CIA
- that is just too impressive. And I never even mentioned that I was a
"clerk"...
OnDeanAdams: Wow, there's news! Like we haven't heard that line of BS before.
--
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#mi...@emi.net (Michael Kelly) wrote:
#>On Sun, 10 Mar 1996 21:52:28 -0500, "Scott A. Beasley"
<s...@inri.com>
#>wrote:
#>>|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~******~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
#>>| Scott A. Beasley ***_******_ __
_ |
#>>| Senior Software Engineer ===//=/\**//=/-
)==//= |
#>>| Inter-National Research Institute
{==//=//\\//=//||==//== |
#>>| 804-249-1235 x423
=//=//==\/*//=||=//=== |
#>>| s...@inri.com *********
|
#>>`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
#>
#>Yeah? What kind of "international research" is that?
#>CIA is a client perhaps?
#Welcome to the club, Scott! Anybody who disagrees with Kelly's
#economically ignorant radical economics is a CIA plant. Anybody who
#works at a company with the words "research" or "institute" is
obviously
#a CIA plant with a CIA contracter. Mike Kelly's houseplants are
bugged
#and his phones are tapped. We'll discuss this further at the next
#meeting.
#--
#Brian Zeiler
Brian, you might pass on to Kelly that insecticidal soap works well at
getting bugs off plants. I know it works for aphids and several other
types of bugs. And it is environmentally correct!
Twi...@hub.ofthe.net
Thomas Kettenring
}The fact of the matter is that the universe is infinite, so the number
}of planets with intelligent life on it is probably approaching infinite.
The universe is infinite? How do you know that? First thing I hear.
And a "fact" it's too! Wow.
}That is what NANA was indirectly trying to say when it predicited 10
}billion planets with life on it. [..]
Aha. So you're Official NASA Statement Interpreter?
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
The One-Nosed Man
Jim Rogers
>In article <4hnmti$h...@nadine.teleport.com>, "Dr. Richard Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
>}The fact of the matter is that the universe is infinite, so the number
>}of planets with intelligent life on it is probably approaching infinite.
>
>The universe is infinite? How do you know that? First thing I hear.
>And a "fact" it's too! Wow.
>
>}That is what NANA was indirectly trying to say when it predicited 10
>}billion planets with life on it. [..]
It is interesting that some fraction of infinity is finite, in Frager-math.
randyf...@gmail.com
> In article <4h07rd$2b...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Brian Zeiler
> <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> Victor Marchetti is a former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of
> pp. 2-7, in an article entitled "How the CIA views the UFO phenomenon",
>
> "...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
> extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with other
> national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from
> maintain a workable stability among the nations of the world and for them,
> in turn, to retain institutional control over their respective populsions.
> Thus, for these governments to admit that there are beings from outer
> space... with mentalities and technological capabilities obviously far
> superior to ours, could, once fully perceived by the average person, erode
> the foundations of the Earth's traditional power structure. Political and
> legal systems, religions, economic and social institutions could all soon
> become meaningless in the mind of the public. The national oligarchical
> establishments, even civilization as we know it, could collapse into anarchy.
> Such extreme conclusions are not necessarily valid, but they probably
> accurately reflect the fears of the 'ruling classes' of the major nations,
> whose leaders (particularly those in the intelligence business) have always
> advocated excessive governmental secrecy as being necessary to preserve
> 'national security.'"
>
> What Marchetti says is perfectly consistent with the Brookings Institute
> research of the late 1960s which said that contact would be dangerously
> disruptive, since superior civilizations demolish inferior civilizations
> throughout human history, either violently or at least culturally.
>
> Marchetti also said that UFOs were not discussed usually because they were
> "very sensitive activities". He had no explicit knowledge, but he said the
> debunking attempts were known by him to be the classic hallmarks of a
> cover-up. He also was intrigued by the fact that he knew they had globally
> dispersed UFO collection facilities through the clandestine services.
> He thought cover-up is further implied by the fact that few of those have
> ever been released. He also mentions in the article that he had heard some
> rumors in high places about the possession of extraterrestrial debris.
> Another highly placed rumor was in regard to the National Security Agency's
> detection by SIGINT of 'strange signals' that had been attributed to
> extraterrestrial origin - and this was when the NSA denied having any
> information or involvement with UFOs until they were sued in the early 1980s
> under the FOIA and won exemption, but still conceded having some information.
>
> Finally, he makes the point that an international agreement between
> superpowers like the USA and former USSR would have been possible because
> the nations' intelligence communities have been cooperative in the past when
> the benefits were mutual. In fact, his words are corroborated by the
> testimony of former Soviet military official Colonel Boris Sokolov, former
> director of a Soviet UFO research program in the 1970s. In an on-camera
> interview with journalist George Knapp, Sokolov says that the USSR decided
> UFOs were a unique phenomenon and could only be extraterrestrial. He also
> said that communications with the CIA revealed that the CIA had reached the
> same conclusion.
>
> --
> Brian Zeiler
>
> Pretty devastating stuff. Looks like you've cracked another big coverup,
> Brian. And to think everyone else overlooked it even after publication in
> the prestigious journal "Second Look" some 17 years ago. I smell a
> Pulizter. You really should publish. Is this what you spend your time on,
> reading crackpot journals not worth the paper they are printed on? Really
> sad.
>
> Al
>
> --
> Al Grund
> agr...@biotechresources.com
> "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"
On Tuesday, February 27, 1996 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Al Grund wrote:
> In article <4h07rd$2b...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Brian Zeiler
> <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> Victor Marchetti is a former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of
> pp. 2-7, in an article entitled "How the CIA views the UFO phenomenon",
>
> "...we have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by
> extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with other
> national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from
> maintain a workable stability among the nations of the world and for them,
> in turn, to retain institutional control over their respective populsions.
> Thus, for these governments to admit that there are beings from outer
> space... with mentalities and technological capabilities obviously far
> superior to ours, could, once fully perceived by the average person, erode
> the foundations of the Earth's traditional power structure. Political and
> legal systems, religions, economic and social institutions could all soon
> become meaningless in the mind of the public. The national oligarchical
> establishments, even civilization as we know it, could collapse into anarchy.
> Such extreme conclusions are not necessarily valid, but they probably
> accurately reflect the fears of the 'ruling classes' of the major nations,
> whose leaders (particularly those in the intelligence business) have always
> advocated excessive governmental secrecy as being necessary to preserve
> 'national security.'"
>
> What Marchetti says is perfectly consistent with the Brookings Institute
> research of the late 1960s which said that contact would be dangerously
> disruptive, since superior civilizations demolish inferior civilizations
> throughout human history, either violently or at least culturally.
>
> Marchetti also said that UFOs were not discussed usually because they were
> "very sensitive activities". He had no explicit knowledge, but he said the
> debunking attempts were known by him to be the classic hallmarks of a
> cover-up. He also was intrigued by the fact that he knew they had globally
> dispersed UFO collection facilities through the clandestine services.
> He thought cover-up is further implied by the fact that few of those have
> ever been released. He also mentions in the article that he had heard some
> rumors in high places about the possession of extraterrestrial debris.
> Another highly placed rumor was in regard to the National Security Agency's
> detection by SIGINT of 'strange signals' that had been attributed to
> extraterrestrial origin - and this was when the NSA denied having any
> information or involvement with UFOs until they were sued in the early 1980s
> under the FOIA and won exemption, but still conceded having some information.
>
> Finally, he makes the point that an international agreement between
> superpowers like the USA and former USSR would have been possible because
> the nations' intelligence communities have been cooperative in the past when
> the benefits were mutual. In fact, his words are corroborated by the
> testimony of former Soviet military official Colonel Boris Sokolov, former
> director of a Soviet UFO research program in the 1970s. In an on-camera
> interview with journalist George Knapp, Sokolov says that the USSR decided
> UFOs were a unique phenomenon and could only be extraterrestrial. He also
> said that communications with the CIA revealed that the CIA had reached the
> same conclusion.
>
> --
> Brian Zeiler
>
> Pretty devastating stuff. Looks like you've cracked another big coverup,
> Brian. And to think everyone else overlooked it even after publication in
> the prestigious journal "Second Look" some 17 years ago. I smell a
> Pulizter. You really should publish. Is this what you spend your time on,
> reading crackpot journals not worth the paper they are printed on? Really
> sad.
>
> Al
>
> --
> Al Grund
> agr...@biotechresources.com
> "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"
Hey, Brian. Appears you're on the right track. You're getting the attention of the big-time buffoons, excuse me, DEBUNKERS. Better cash your government checks quickly, Al - we're on to you. ;-)