CIA REDACTIONS by Charles Tromblee

CIA REDACTIONS         9/2012

One of my favorite ufologists is Stanton Friedman. Part of his routine in speaking about UFOs is to show a couple of pages of government released documents on the subject, and these pages shows a shockingly small amount of readable words per page, the remainder being blacked out. In my opinion, this is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence that there is a UFO coverup, yet few people who argue the case for UFOs use this piece of evidence to any great extent. Shown below is an example of one of the UFO document’s redacted pages that I copied from Stanton Friedman’s web site. This page looks to be about 80-90% redacted. A few redaction-related quotes from Mr. Friedman are appended.* For another example, you will see Mr. Friedman paging through a redacted UFO document at the 3:18 mark at the following YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeG0RpyxE6Q&feature=related

Now, we all know that UFOs are supposed to be of no interest to our intelligence community, so what is the government’s reason for all of these redactions? The main excuse is that the agency does not want to reveal its “sources and methods.”  Obviously, even an idiot can qualitatively reason that this does not make sense; i.e. that sources and methods should not take up about 95% of any document. 

In 1972 the CIA learned that Victor Marchetti, a former high level employee of the CIA, intended to publish a book about the CIA, entitled The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. It is not a UFO book. The CIA blocked its publication, citing a danger of “grave and irreparable harm to the United States.” Thus it became the first book ever to have been censored prior to its publication. Through extensive legal challenges, Marchetti got the CIA to point out what they did not like in the book, and then subsequently got the court system to allow its publication with 300 redactions. Subsequent legal work by the authors resulted in 157 of the redactions being allowed, and the book was published in 1974 **.The publication was done with all 300 of the CIA’s desired redactions highlighted in their original length, even though 143 of them were left blank. All the released redactions are highlighted in the book, and the remaining redactions are shown as the word “Deleted” in parentheses, and the size of the redaction is preserved. Therefore, if one measures the text on an average words per line basis, one can find out for the deleted portions how many words and lines were originally there and convert that to a percentage of the book’s page length. BTW, one page = 45 lines, 333 words avg.

Results of the study of this book are as follows: The median (50% above, 50% below) redaction in the book is 7.5% of a page, NOT 90% or so of a page as with a UFO document.  Now contrast this with the UFO examples that you have seen. “Normal” redactions pertaining to non-UFO subject matter apparently are much smaller than with UFO subject matter. If UFOs are not a matter of interest to the CIA, are not a security issue to the USA, and are not studied by the CIA, then what are all the FOIA extensive redactions pertaining to? Clearly, we have been and still are being lied to.

Out of the 300 total redactions, there were 8 redactions of >1 page in length, and only one redaction > 2 pages in length.

Of the 157 released redactions, 90 deal with sources and methods. The longest sources and methods redaction was 1 page, while the vast majority were 1 or 2 words each, because they were simply revealing a name or a place. Also, none of the 157 certainly could be considered as causing “grave and irreparable harm to the United States.”

Of the 143 redactions left blank, 7 were greater than one page, and the median length was 15% of a page.

Figures 1 and 2 show the frequency of page-percentage redaction lengths in 5 % increments.  I have drawn a “UFO line” at a redaction page % length of about 90-95% which is about the range that Stanton Friedman’s FOIA UFO documents (especially NSA releases) have been redacted. The intent of Figures 1 and 2 is to illustrate how ludicrous the explanation is that only sources and methods would be the reason for 90-95% redaction of a UFO released document.** Clearly, there is a UFO coverup.

At this point I will now move on to mention a few more things that I learned from The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. Because this is a book about defining the CIA, there were some redactions which revealed the CIA’s size and organizational structure. There were also some that revealed various policies that they use and positions that they take on various matters. There were also some redactions that were clearly for CYA self protection and to avoid embarrassment. 57 of the 157 released redactions fell into these categories. When you think about these, you realize that in a normal CIA document, none of this type of information would be normally included because there would be no need by the CIA document’s author to define his organization to the readers of his document because they themselves would be fellow CIA employees. If I had “dis-included” these types of redactions, it still would not have changed the dramatic appearance of the “UFO line” versus the typical redaction distributions shown in Figures 1 and 2.

We know that the CIA has moles and employees embedded in universities, state governments, newspapers, etc. but what I did not know is that they also have control over various airlines that they use repeatedly to transport personnel and other mission related things. Air America and Continental Airlines were two of them. The CIA also tries to make money from some of its operations so that they can fill their coffers for mission related expenses without going to the government to ask for more. You can see why there were rumors about the CIA profiting from drug related activity. The CIA also has its own technology division, much like “Q” does in the 007 movies.

Incidentally, there is no mention of UFOs in the text, although I now find that Victor Marchetti did speak of the UFO issue with respect to the CIA in later years. Also, there is nothing much in his book about the Kennedy assassination either. Anybody who has read much of my stuff will know that I believe that the CIA murdered Kennedy. There is an interesting quote in the book by Harry Truman, the person under whom the CIA was (poorly) created: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational arm and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.” President Truman said this in December, 1963 long after leaving office. Kennedy had been assassinated only 1 month prior. Do you think he had a suspicion that maybe his CIA creation, formed by copying a totalitarian, Gestapo secret police organizational model with no oversight, had done the job? Ironically, one of the criticisms of the CIA by the author is that it is too often used by the President as a personal tool. Clearly, they view the President as their Leader. But as we know from Roman history, many times the emperor was assassinated by his own guards. I suppose that if Marchetti did put anything about the assassination or UFOs in his book, it would never have been published at all, and maybe Mr. Marchetti would have gotten a pine box for his efforts.

*From Stanton Friedman’s website, article entitled “Debunkers At It Again”, published 2/3/2009: “No credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public? Is he really unaware of the many TOP SECRET UMBRA CIA UFO documents that have been released so heavily redacted that many pages say “Deny in Toto” or that many others are blacked out except for fewer than eight words. Is he really unaware that because of a FOIA court case, the NSA has admitted finding 156 TOP SECRET UMBRA UFO documents. When finally released, one could read about one sentence per page with the  rest being whited out. The excuse for redaction was that it is illegal to release sources and methods information. It is absurd to suggest that more than 95% of these UFO documents consisted of sources and methods information. Federal Court Judge Gerhard Gesell agreed the documents should not be released. “The Public interest in disclosure is far outweighed by the potential danger to the security of the United States should this information be released,” he wrote."

5/4/12 UFO Chronicles “The UFO Bestiary: A Rebuttal By Stanton T. Friedman”: “Perhaps you can tell me what is under the whiteout used by the NSA on better than 95% of the material on 156 pages of old TOP SECRET UMBRA NSA UFO documents? All one can read is about one sentence per page. How about the many pages of TOP SECRET UMPRA CIA UFO documents; almost all of which are blacked out? No Cover-up?”

3/9/12 UFO Chronicles: “When finally more or less released, one could read several words per page in the CIA stuff with the rest being blacked out and about one sentence per page on the 156 NSA UFO documents with the rest being whited out.”

**This is clearly an old book (1974), but one must keep in mind that FOIA released UFO documents with all their redactions are of this period as well. Therefore, I think that it is legitimate to compare these redactions to UFO FOIA redactions.

***I am using my own redaction count in this paper because the book’s count is wrong. The book’s count is 339 redactions of which 168 were disallowed, and my own count is 300 of which 143 were disallowed. The publisher used a sloppy method of counting.

CIA REDACTIONS      by Chuck Tromblee   9/2012

One of my favorite ufologists is Stanton Friedman. Part of his routine in speaking about UFOs is to show a couple of pages of government released documents on the subject, and these pages shows a shockingly small amount of readable words per page, the remainder being blacked out. In my opinion, this is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence that there is a UFO coverup, yet few people who argue the case for UFOs use this piece of evidence to any great extent. Shown below is an example of one of the UFO document’s redacted pages that I copied from Stanton Friedman’s web site. This page looks to be about 80-90% redacted. A few redaction-related quotes from Mr. Friedman are appended.* For another example, you will see Mr. Friedman paging through a redacted UFO document at the 3:18 mark at the following YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeG0RpyxE6Q&feature=related

Now, we all know that UFOs are supposed to be of no interest to our intelligence community, so what is the government’s reason for all of these redactions? The main excuse is that the agency does not want to reveal its “sources and methods.”  Obviously, even an idiot can qualitatively reason that this does not make sense; i.e. that sources and methods should not take up about 95% of any document. 

In 1972 the CIA learned that Victor Marchetti, a former high level employee of the CIA, intended to publish a book about the CIA, entitled The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. It is not a UFO book. The CIA blocked its publication, citing a danger of “grave and irreparable harm to the United States.” Thus it became the first book ever to have been censored prior to its publication. Through extensive legal challenges, Marchetti got the CIA to point out what they did not like in the book, and then subsequently got the court system to allow its publication with 300 redactions. Subsequent legal work by the authors resulted in 157 of the redactions being allowed, and the book was published in 1974 **.The publication was done with all 300 of the CIA’s desired redactions highlighted in their original length, even though 143 of them were left blank. All the released redactions are highlighted in the book, and the remaining redactions are shown as the word “Deleted” in parentheses, and the size of the redaction is preserved. Therefore, if one measures the text on an average words per line basis, one can find out for the deleted portions how many words and lines were originally there and convert that to a percentage of the book’s page length. BTW, one page = 45 lines, 333 words avg.

Results of the study of this book are as follows: The median (50% above, 50% below) redaction in the book is 7.5% of a page, NOT 90% or so of a page as with a UFO document.  Now contrast this with the UFO examples that you have seen. “Normal” redactions pertaining to non-UFO subject matter apparently are much smaller than with UFO subject matter. If UFOs are not a matter of interest to the CIA, are not a security issue to the USA, and are not studied by the CIA, then what are all the FOIA extensive redactions pertaining to? Clearly, we have been and still are being lied to.

Out of the 300 total redactions, there were 8 redactions of >1 page in length, and only one redaction > 2 pages in length.

Of the 157 released redactions, 90 deal with sources and methods. The longest sources and methods redaction was 1 page, while the vast majority were 1 or 2 words each, because they were simply revealing a name or a place. Also, none of the 157 certainly could be considered as causing “grave and irreparable harm to the United States.”

Of the 143 redactions left blank, 7 were greater than one page, and the median length was 15% of a page.

Figures 1 and 2 show the frequency of page-percentage redaction lengths in 5 % increments.  I have drawn a “UFO line” at a redaction page % length of about 90-95% which is about the range that Stanton Friedman’s FOIA UFO documents (especially NSA releases) have been redacted. The intent of Figures 1 and 2 is to illustrate how ludicrous the explanation is that only sources and methods would be the reason for 90-95% redaction of a UFO released document.** Clearly, there is a UFO coverup.

Now I will move on to mention a few more things that I learned from The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. Because this is a book about defining the CIA, there were some redactions which revealed the CIA’s size and organizational structure. There were also some that revealed various policies that they use and positions that they take on various matters. There were also some redactions that were clearly for CYA self protection and to avoid embarrassment. 57 of the 157 released redactions fell into these categories. When you think about these, you realize that in a normal CIA document, none of this type of information would be normally included because there would be no need by the CIA document’s author to define his organization to the readers of his document because they themselves would be fellow CIA employees. If I had “dis-included” these types of redactions, it still would not have changed the dramatic appearance of the “UFO line” versus the typical redaction distributions shown in Figures 1 and 2.

We know that the CIA has moles and employees embedded in universities, state governments, newspapers, etc. but what I did not know is that they also have control over various airlines that they use repeatedly to transport personnel and other mission related things. Air America and Continental Airlines were two of them. The CIA also tries to make money from some of its operations so that they can fill their coffers for mission related expenses without going to the government to ask for more. You can see why there were rumors about the CIA profiting from drug related activity. The CIA also has its own technology division, much like “Q” does in the 007 movies.

Incidentally, there is no mention of UFOs in the text, although I now find that Victor Marchetti did speak of the UFO issue with respect to the CIA in later years. Also, there is nothing much in his book about the Kennedy assassination either. Anybody who has read much of my stuff will know that I believe that the CIA murdered Kennedy. There is an interesting quote in the book by Harry Truman, the person under whom the CIA was (poorly) created: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational arm and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.” President Truman said this in December, 1963 long after leaving office. Kennedy had been assassinated only 1 month prior. Do you think he had a suspicion that maybe his CIA creation, formed by copying a totalitarian, Gestapo secret police organizational model with no oversight, had done the job? Ironically, one of the criticisms of the CIA by the author is that it is too often used by the President as a personal tool. Clearly, they view the President as their Leader. But as we know from Roman history, many times the emperor was assassinated by his own guards. I suppose that if Marchetti did put anything about the assassination or UFOs in his book, it would never have been published at all, and maybe Mr. Marchetti would have gotten a pine box for his efforts.

*From Stanton Friedman’s website, article entitled “Debunkers At It Again”, published 2/3/2009: “No credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public? Is he really unaware of the many TOP SECRET UMBRA CIA UFO documents that have been released so heavily redacted that many pages say “Deny in Toto” or that many others are blacked out except for fewer than eight words. Is he really unaware that because of a FOIA court case, the NSA has admitted finding 156 TOP SECRET UMBRA UFO documents. When finally released, one could read about one sentence per page with the  rest being whited out. The excuse for redaction was that it is illegal to release sources and methods information. It is absurd to suggest that more than 95% of these UFO documents consisted of sources and methods information. Federal Court Judge Gerhard Gesell agreed the documents should not be released. “The Public interest in disclosure is far outweighed by the potential danger to the security of the United States should this information be released,” he wrote.

5/4/12 UFO Chronicles “The UFO Bestiary: A Rebuttal By Stanton T. Friedman” “Perhaps you can tell me what is under the whiteout used by the NSA on better than 95% of the material on 156 pages of old TOP SECRET UMBRA NSA UFO documents? All one can read is about one sentence per page. How about the many pages of TOP SECRET UMPRA CIA UFO documents; almost all of which are blacked out? No Cover-up?”

3/9/12 UFO Chronicles “When finally more or less released, one could read several words per page in the CIA stuff with the rest being blacked out and about one sentence per page on the 156 NSA UFO documents with the rest being whited out.”

**This is clearly an old book (1974), but one must keep in mind that FOIA released UFO documents with all their redactions are of this period as well. Therefore, I think that it is legitimate to compare these redactions to UFO FOIA redactions.

***I am using my own redaction count in this paper because the book’s count is wrong. The book’s count is 339 redactions of which 168 were disallowed, and my own count is 300 of which 143 were disallowed. The publisher used a sloppy method of counting.

MUFON: What Is Going On There? by Charles Tromblee

MUFON: What is going on there?  

Not being a dues paying member of MUFON, I look from the outside in at their activities and wonder what might be going on there. Their website says that their mission is “The Scientific Study of UFOs for the Benefit of Humanity”. The MUFON chapter nearest to me is in Sedona, Arizona, and it is their complete lack of scientific interest that has stopped me from joining. Due to this, I even called MUFON’s main office to confirm that this chapter is really a valid chapter. It is. You have probably guessed from this that I am a nuts-and-bolts kind of UFO guy, and you would be right. Any comments that I make about MUFON are done from the perspective of an outsider.

All UFO orgs of the past have had spy scrutiny and infiltration by government agencies. In fact, this was one of the recommendations of the Robertson panel. This activity assisted the government with the dissolution of NICAP and APRO, although these groups also self-destructed to a large extent as well. It appears to me that MUFON in its formation tried to avoid a hostile government by consciously avoiding a political agenda, and that continues to this day. For example, the recent petitions to the government to reveal what it knows about the cover up came from people who were acting independently of MUFON. I happen to believe that MUFON should have a political agenda, and it should have been they, not “regular” people, who first submitted these petitions. It should have been done years ago by MUFON through a lobbying process, a role which now belongs to one lonely person, Steven Bassett.

MUFON has also undergone recent internal turmoil. The well publicized boondoggles with Robert Bigelow and the previous young director of MUFON indicate a seething, cash strapped org.  I can only hope that they survive and prosper beyond these kinds of tempests.

On the MUFON web site, several forms are listed which appear quite well done. The one I looked most closely at was the one the investigators use for sightings of “entities.” Most of my own research is based on Close Encounters of the Third Kind sightings (i.e. entities).  I was pleased to see that the four check boxes for observed alien activity started with “sample gathering” followed by “repairs”. This exactly matches my own research results for the first and second most observed alien activity during CE3 sightings.

One thing that I did NOT see on these forms was any reference to local legends and ghosts. I would like to find out if this sort of coverage area is recommended by the MUFON manual, so that is why I want to obtain one. The reason I bring this up is that I read a report written by a MUFON Star team (or is it A Team?) investigator a few years ago on the UFO Chronicles blog site. The Star or A  Team was composed of the best MUFON investigators, and the report mentioned that one of the first steps was to check into local cemetery lore such as Indian burial grounds and other local paranormal things such as ghosts. (I am going purely by memory here; I cannot find this report on UFO Chronicles anymore.) Given  MUFON’s  stated mission as being the “scientific study of UFOs …” I thought that this due diligence of investigating ghosts, etc. rather odd and unscientific. But then as time has passed, I now think, why not? Certainly UFOs have a kind of paranormal component, and who am I to restrict the boundaries of such an investigation? This investigator was thinking out of the box which is a good thing for UFOs. If I owned a MUFON Field Investigator’s Manual, I could find out if researching the spiritual and/or paranormal is discussed in it, but the only way I can get my hands on it is to pay $70 which I am not going to do.

I just saw a Richard Dolan video in which he speaks his concerns for MUFON. UFO believers need such an organization, so if MUFON falls, what are we all to do? He alludes to concerns/complaints that people have about its Board of Directors. Maybe some of these are valid, but I am sure that most are not. Having served on a subdivision board of directors for 3 years, I can assure everyone with absolute certainty that even a board consisting of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Abe Lincoln and George Washington would still receive a ton of complaints in our litigious society.

THE FUGGEDABOUTIT GUIDE TO SPEEDING UP UFO ANALYSES by Charles Tromblee

The Fuggedaboutit Guide to Speeding Up UFO Analyses    

I have watched lots of UFO video clips on YouTube, and have read over 10,000 case study summaries. It was not fun. There are so few stories worthy of merit that it can make you want to bang your head against a wall. Therefore, I have developed some criteria for rejecting a UFO video or story which will help you to speed up your decision making process on whether to investigate a sighting or a case any further.

VISUAL SIGHTINGS (Includes videos)

1.       If it leaves a wake, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: I am talking about an exhaust trail here, and not about a trailing stream of ionized gas. UFOs do not leave exhausts, but the danger here is in rejecting a UFO that is malfunctioning and burning up while it is in trouble. You could miss a crash related sighting.

2.       If it makes a combustion engine noise, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: Pretty much the same as previous. UFOs are silent or at most make a buzz or hum. Once again, the danger is missing a malfunctioning UFO and therefore missing a crash related sighting.

3.       If it tumbles in the air, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: Almost certainly it is a balloon.

4.       If it is just a nighttime dot of light, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: What kind of information can you get from a nighttime dot of light? Almost none. Stop wasting your time.

5.       If it looks like an unusual cloud, it probably is so FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: Yes, there have been reports about UFOs surrounding themselves with a cloud for disguise purposes, but these are few and far between and they seem to be a thing of the past. Lenticular clouds still are mistaken for UFOs nowadays far more often than good reports of cloud shrouded UFOs, so don’t waste your time on these.

6.       If it is a mass of orbs in the sky drifting like balloons or writhing tubes in the sky, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: Whenever I see one of these, I want to know which way the wind is blowing and this info usually is not provided. I think that most all of these are drifting with the wind.

7.       If the video looks like the UFO is propelled by a rippling wave motion at roughly the equator of the object (looks like the swimming motion of a manta ray), then the camera was at too long of an exposure while capturing a flying bug or bird, so FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: No comment needed.

8.       If the video just shows a light that just sits there or drifts and then the video ends, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: Why would anyone just film a stationary UFO and not stick around for its departure? If they have a charged up camera, and if they don’t capture the departure of the UFO, then it is probably not a UFO because it may be either a hoax or just a Chinese lantern or the like. The departure can contain lots of information which would validate that it is an actual UFO, such as extremely rapid acceleration and possibly a pre-acceleration brightening of the object. If it looks like a stationary or drifting light, then that is probably what it is. Even if it were a hovering UFO, what could we learn from a dot of light that just sits there?  Nothing.

CASE STUDY SUMMARIES (Let me be clear here: these are suggestions on whether to select an archived case study as a valid data point, and NOT suggestions for interviewing the witness. Also, please continue to report all of your sightings.)

1.       If no UFO was sighted in either time or space proximity as part of the story, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: There are many close encounter cases with no UFO present, so they cease to become a close encounter case and should be disregarded as a source of UFO info. They are more likely hallucinations or an encounter of some other sort. Admittedly, the investigator could miss an actual Close Encounter of the Third Kind case, but I judge that as an acceptable risk.

2.       If it is a story told by children (<16 or 17 years old), FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: Children don’t make good witnesses even though they are more than likely to see a UFO than an adult because they are outside playing. However, their stories could prove useful as a supplement to info on the same object sighted by an adult(s).

3.       If the story talks about Jesus or heaven, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: A quote by either Budd Hopkins or David Jacobs, abduction researchers, says it best: : “Mainstream abduction researchers have been unable to find anything paranormal, spiritual, religious, or metaphysical about the phenomenon.” For non abduction encounters, it is entirely possible that the witness has viewed an actual encounter through his/her filter of religious upbringing, and interpreted the story as a religious experience. This further introduces more distortion into the story, making a judgment about the “facts” learned from the story almost impossible.

4.       If the story says, “I was able to remember after hypnosis that …”, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: Hypnosis is a very controversial tool that can lead to confabulation if not handled by a very trained interviewer. Memory recovery under hypnosis is valid only when an expert does it, and in the case of UFO abductions, that expert needs further training against implanting confabulating suggestions. Once again, here is a quote from David Jacobs, abduction researcher:  “The most serious barrier to competent abduction research is incompetent hypnosis.” In my opinion, even an ordinary psychologist, although possibly trained in hypnosis, still easily could get untrue results. And this applies much more broadly to all UFO memory recovery, not just abductions.

5.       If the story says, “I awoke at night and saw in my room …” or “I awoke and for some reason I looked out the window and saw …”, FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: These types of story introductions are highly suggestive of a continuing dream state just after awakening, and therefore reduce the believability of the encounter. There sure are a lot of these stories that start like this, especially abductions.

6.       If the story says, “The witness has had previous encounters  too.”, this gets a qualified FUGGEDABOUTIT!

     Comment: I almost did not include this because we all know of highly reliable people who have seen more than one UFO, such as Coral Lorenzen, founder of APRO, and Dr. Paul R. Hill, author of the book “Unconventional Flying Objects”. Plus some people have an affinity for seeing these things, and others make it their hobby to collect sightings. Plus, in the case of abductions, previous encounters seem to be the norm. However, at the very least, previous sightings should be regarded as a red cautionary flag that should be investigated a bit just to see if the witness can be relied upon.

Yes, following these criteria will result in some good encounters being rejected.  But let’s face it. 80-90% of reported sightings are not UFOs. Our time is limited. We need to increase the odds that our time is spent meaningfully, so mistakenly rejecting a few good stories along with the thousands of non-UFO stories makes sense to me. 

THE DOUBTERS AMONG US by Charles Tromblee

THE DOUBTERS AMONG US                                                          

Many UFO books and articles are written which only address the way that humanity deals with UFOs, and are not about the UFOs themselves. That is, they are about  a person’s reaction to an encounter, a collection of sightings with no interpretation, the government coverup, and so forth. Now, I am not talking about what is written by the nut job part of humanity, but instead what is written by persons of a very level headed nature, by persons who have drawn the correct conclusion that something major is going on which needs clarification. I have read many of their books, and have only recently been struck by a major realization.

The realization is this: To the best of my recollection, few of the major authors in the field of ufology have come out and said that we are being visited by extraterrestrial races and the UFOs are their crafts (Richard Dolan and Stanton Friedman are the top two.)*. It appears to me that most of the remainder always hedge their bets, falling back to a plea for more study. These pleas occur after in depth presentation of lots of case study discussion and/or document review.  Despite the fact that all their good writing compels the reader to believe in the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis), the authors hold back on crossing the line of total commitment to the ETH. It took me a while to adjust to the reality that these well studied people who write books, run blogs, author articles, and give lectures on UFOs overwhelmingly seem to be holding back, at least publicly, on professing belief that these  craft are piloted by alien races. Do they really believe that all the good sightings are advanced military experiments? Practically the whole UFO field appears to be populated by those who don’t even fully believe in the ETH! They do believe that it is a very good possibility, however.  This is like holding back on believing in evolution because of the theory of intelligent design.

Nevertheless, most UFO speakers and authors will admit that UFOs appear to be structured craft under intelligent control. If they think that this is the case, then why hold back in saying that the aliens are here? Yikes! Sure, there could be a residual doubt that the whole UFO things is being misinterpreted, and that it could be something more earthly. Even I have a tiny doubt, but the odds are so stacked in favor of the ETH being the actual truth that it should simply be put in the back of one’s mind while information about the aliens is pursued. What this means is that there is an acceptable risk of being embarrassed by a “false positive”; i.e. that someday the phenomenon could be found to be totally unrelated to alien visitation.

Non-acceptance of the ETH holds one back and wastes time. After all, how many of you have read a UFO book which enumerates lots of sightings and then the author calls for more study? I have, and even though I enjoyed reading them, after the first 5 or 10 such books I ceased to learn anything more about UFOs. Wouldn’t you much rather read the same book in which the author enumerates those same sightings and then states the obviousness of alien involvement and then goes on to analyze those sightings to extract  hypotheses about the aliens and the crafts? Wouldn’t it be nice if the author would go on to speculate about what the hell is inside that thing and what keeps it airborne?  This would push the reader further into an understanding of our visitors. ETH acceptance answers many questions about UFOs, leaving one’s brain free to concentrate on more “alien-centric” questions. Among the questions the ETH answers immediately upon its acceptance are “Are they real? Are they here? Is star or dimensional travel possible? Is there a coverup? “

·   
            * A few more might be Dr. John Alexander, Frank Feschino, James Fox, and Anthony Bragalia, but I sure cannot remember any others as I write. I could put Philip Corso in there too, but I have a problem with the truthfulness of his claims.

HIGH SPEED UFOS by Charles Tromblee

High Speed UFOs: A Couple of Thoughts on Why UFOs Aren’t Noticed Until Photo/Video Viewing

There are many apparently non-hoaxed shots of UFOs in the sky where the camera person never noticed the object until his/her photos/videos were developed. What are some reasons why the UFOs were not noticed in real time as the event was being recorded?

There are a few prevailing reasons for this, and all are probably true. Here are a couple of reasons why humans did not notice the object in real time.

1.     The Recording Instrument captures a broader range of radiation frequencies than the human eye can see.  The easiest to explain example of this theory is that if, say, the UFO is in its stealth mode yet is heated up (i.e. emanating infrared), then an infrared camera would capture the presence of it on film even though it was invisible to the human eye. UFO stealth technology may be so advanced that it can control ALL of the craft’s radiation absorptions and emissions. This would explain why some encounters appear to exhibit both controllable radar invisibility and sight invisibility.   UFO stealth technology may be more than “simply” re-routing light rays to go around the craft (I say “simply” even though we cannot do that yet). Instead, it could be a controllable absorption of the energy impacting the UFO with a subsequent controllable re-emanation of that energy at any frequency so desired by the pilot. He/she/it could choose ultraviolet, normal light, infrared, or none at all (invisibility.) Controllable absorption ties in nicely with those UFOs sighted above power companies which are apparently absorbing the plant’s energy.

2.     This next reason is obvious. High speed UFOs are in many videos in which the UFO is going so fast that it was not noticed until the video was viewed.  I have seen about five or six of these videos. This writeup was inspired by a recent YouTube high speed UFO video shot from inside a car.  A decade or two ago, there were a couple of documentary videos showing the same thing: one was a UFO emerging from a cloud and the other was a UFO zipping by the top of a farm windmill. When the videos are slowed down to frame by frame viewing, it is always an ellipsoid shape that emerges. Of course, still photographs can also accidentally capture a high speed UFO as well. The impression that I get from these videos is that the UFO is at a much lower altitude than a commercial airplane which normally fly around 30,000 to 40,000 feet. I think these UFOs are only a mile or two in altitude at most. I go into this kind of stuff more deeply in my book, “Alien Radix”, but what follows is a hypothetical example that is not contained in that book.                                                                                                                    

Consider, for example, a six foot tall person standing on a featureless plain which is flat as a pancake as far as the eye can see. Lots of places in this country are like that such as central Illinois, Kansas, the Dakotas, and so forth. On this type of terrain, one has a 180 degree view of the arc of the sky. Now consider a high speed, 30,000 mph UFO approaching that person at a mile height. How long would it take that UFO to fly from true horizon to true horizon, thus going completely into and out of the man’s view? Would it be so brief a time that you would all agree that he almost certainly wouldn’t notice it?

Take a look at the diagram below. Shown is a man stick figure whose eye level is 6’ above the ground looking toward the true horizon, which is designated by ‘T’, the tangent point. How far away is that man from ‘T’? That is, let’s calculate distance ‘a’. As you can see, the line of sight from the man to the tangent point makes a right triangle to the radius of the earth. Therefore we have a right triangle, and our job is to calculate distance ‘a’ of a right triangle whose hypotenuse is the radius of the earth plus 6 feet, and the other leg of the triangle is simply earth’s radius, 4000 miles. You all learned this Pythagorean calculation in grade or high school, and there are charts on the internet which gives the answers to this. A 6’ eye level is 1.829 meters, and the calculation for this is about 5 km. So ‘a’ equals 5 km. A 30,000 mph UFO would take only 0.375 seconds to traverse that 5 km from the true horizon , and it would take another 0.375 seconds to disappear behind him. So the UFO would be visible only for 2 x 0.375 = 0.75 seconds. The man, even if he noticed the UFO from its initial appearance, probably would not even have time to turn around to see it leave. Three fourths of a second goes by pretty fast. In the real world, most people do not have expansive views of the sky, so the chance of noticing any high speed UFO in a portion of the sky gets even lower because the viewing time opportunity gets even smaller.

   

But there’s more to consider. The hypothetical UFO is a mile up above the earth, so the man could theoretically see the UFO just as it comes into view beyond the true horizon point ‘T’. Under this consideration, the UFO is viewable for a considerably longer distance, and therefore, time. Thus we can use the right triangle approach used previously and now calculate the distance ‘b’ in the diagram. For 1 mile altitude, ‘b’ equals 89.4 miles. I doubt that even a large UFO would be “seeable” by the human eye right at the horizon for from a distance of 92.5 miles (89.4mi + 5 km) because a large UFO at such a long distance would look like a dot at best, and also due to near earth atmospheric conditions (shimmer, haze, dust, etc.).  Just to finish the calculation, though, it would take a 30,000 mph UFO 22.2 seconds to go the distance twice (a+b).  If a person had the vision of an eagle, he could watch that fast UFO for more than enough time to record it, consider it, whatever.

For the critical reader, these are crude calculations, and they could have been made more accurate by considering the increase in time due to horizontal light rays tending to bend toward the earth due to increasing atomospheric density close to earth, and calculating for the curvature of the earth instead of calculating straight line distances. Also, Earth’s radius is not exactly 4000 miles. Doing these corrections would not have changed the result more than 20%, while the general results regarding time would remain the same.

3.     We have mistaken bugs/birds for a UFO. I wrote this a couple of months ago and at that time there was a popular video going around about some high speed ufos in Chile shown in the following video:

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/12853/faster-than-a-speeding-bullet

I had intended to use this video to illustrate a high speed UFO. I am ashamed to admit that I was taken in by it due to the provenance of the video because it came from a Chilean government organization whose job it is to be Chile’s official group for the study of UFOs. It is known as the Committee for the Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena (CEFAA). Shortly after its release, a UFO skeptic came forward and pointed out that there are bugs in the foreground of the UFO which, if you follow their flight paths, show that the objects zipping along that were shot against the blue sky are bugs also. Another warning sign about this video that is just as disturbing is that it has already been pre-processed for our consumption, with carefully chosen stop frames and such. It is as though we are being guided toward the UFO conclusion.  Supposedly the CEFAA has gone back and is restudying their early conclusions about this video and its subsequent release. Recall that years ago, the USA had a government sponsored committee charged with investigating UFOs, just like CEFAA. However, our committee, which was Project Blue Book, was really formed to debunk them. The behavior of the CEFAA appears like it wishes to do just the opposite! I wish to thank the UFO skeptic who discovered this (this is the first time I have ever been grateful to a UFO skeptic.) As far as I know, the CEFAA still has not issued any explanation for their probable error regarding this video. The major conclusion that we must take away from this video is that even official sources who are supposed to be open minded about UFOs can still be tempted to be too pro-UFO, and that bugs and possibly hummingbirds can still be mistaken for high speed UFOs. Prior to this video, I was of the opinion that a video of a bug/hummingbird would turn out to be a “rod”, which is a video of a bug shot at too slow of a speed such that the body of the bug apprears elongated, and its wings make a wavy, rippling line down the axis of the elongated body.  

For your viewing pleasure here are a couple of more UFO videos: the first two are moderately high speed UFOs and the third is just a neat video of a really big UFO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwLGjMjC7k0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J81442KZQqI

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/92831/UFO_Mothership_Caught_on_Jets_Gun_Camera/

THE DEAL by Charles Tromblee

The Deal      

Most of you are probably aware of a story in the world of UFOs  about an Eisenhower meeting with aliens. This story claims that these aliens were of a species that had corn row hair much like ancient Sumerians and big noses. An allegedly real movie clip exists of several seconds of footage of their UFO landing at the air force base where the meeting took place.  Also, on 5/8/2010, retiring US New Hampshire State Representative, Henry McElroy Jr.,  made a video in which he revealed that he had seen a memo cross his desk many decades before which was informing Eisenhower that it was possible for our government to arrange a meeting between him and  aliens if he so desired. Mr. McElroy did not remember the date of the memo, but it should have been before or during 1954 when such a meeting allegedly occurred. You can easily find both video clips on YouTube. Eisenhower’s staff had set up a cover story for the pre-arranged meeting in which he went to the dentist so that the press and public would not be concerned with his whereabouts. I won’t go into more detail due to the wide dissemination of this story which you can find anywhere.

Less well known, however, is a variation of this same story in which Eisenhower met on separate occasions with two different species of aliens, neither of which were the big nosed “Sumerians.”  The first was with human appearing aliens (Nordics) followed by a meeting with the grays. This kind of thing happens all the time with UFO stories, in which several story variations follow the main story, and these variations are introduced as disinformation to confuse and reduce the believability of the main story. These variations are believed to be introduced by UFO debunkers such as the CIA to continue to maintain control of the UFO issue.

I have always felt something disturbing about this second story variation (the one with the two types of aliens).To me it shows a masterful disinformation genius at work. As the storyline goes, the Nordics promised to give humanity knowledge and a wonderful society if we would give up our weapons to them and avow peace. The stroke of genius in this story is that it is analogous to Satan’s temptation of Christ. (No, I am not religious.) Satan told Christ, “These things I will do for you if you will bow down to me.” The genius is how well the Nordics’ offer overlays Satan’s offer. My theory is that people subconsciously connect the two storylines. Just look at it: “These things (knowledge and peace) I will do for (give to) you if you will bow down (surrender your weapons) to me.” To his credit, Eisenhower refused the offer.

Instead, as the story goes, he then negotiated a wonderful deal with the rival grays to obtain their technology in exchange for permission to harmlessly abduct human beings for some kind of study of theirs (sarcasm intended). Allegedly, they were supposed to report the names of those abducted, but they never followed through with the agreement, and abducted way more people than what they originally promised to.  The abductions also inflicted psychological harm on most of the victims as well.

I do not know if either of these stories is true, but the first version has quite a few sources. Eisenhower, by the way, is in my UFO Hall of Shame, but not for the reasons of the preceding story.