The Un-Official ET Disclosure
and
Its History of Covert-UFOlogy
By Randy Koppang – 20 July 2009
The correlations made below probe deeper into the circumstances regarding
extraterrestrial UFOs visiting earth. I intend a distinction here, because today valid evidence
exists for human-made UFO-like craft (see www.integrity-research.org, by Thomas Valone).
However, let’s say we discovered all this evidence is largely a test. All the above, in our
past, and all the more to surface in our near future is a test. That is – for all practical purposes.
For all of us persuaded to document the ET/UFO issue, how would such an irrefutable
conclusion affect you? Could this be a type of ufology in reverse?
Being persuaded that ETs are here now, is a ‘reality check’ rather profound: Therefore,
they could have always been here! Our known history does not show we (humanity) have yet
revised our worldviews, or identities in accordance with ETs visiting earth; i.e., ETs entering our
collective history. So, the news of the moment, is that we discern this UFO business is just a
test. Entering ‘the doors of perception’ through our commons of ET ‘infotainment’.
It must be assured as to just how we all are going to react. So, this test is turning out to
require a ‘period of adjustment’ lasting generations of living time.
And why would it not last so long? Yes, there are some of us Americans who proclaim,
‘We want the revelation and we want it now!’ (paraphrasing revolutionary poet Jim Morrison).
The problem is, it is presumptuous to assume virtually all of 6.7 billion earthlings are also
uncompromisingly insistent that their paradigm be shifted. ETs usher in this shift.
Alas, for those of us Westerners who are properly prepared, we must suffice with passing
our cosmic social adjustment . . .
Meanwhile, the working hypothesis below describes the historical account of how the ET
problem has been managed. The evidence for this sociological alternity seems to fit a definite
pattern. Thus, as with the theme of the new TV drama, “Fringe” – “the pattern” reverses
predictable psychology. And this mystery is contradictory, but recognizing the pattern also
illustrates something more educational is going on.
A Commemoration
The following quotation was authored exactly 50 years ago, in 1959. From one of the
classic contactee UFO books it came, titled From Outer Space To You, by Howard and Marla
Menger. This begins illustrating the pattern:
As a historical precedent, I quote the “Briefing” prologue to this book: “. . . Let us
assume that there is on this planet a group of scientifically minded . . . men and women who are
working to accomplish this great task. And, let us further assume that they have already
established contacts with . . . people of other planets. To continue their work and remain
effective, they must of necessity remain behind the scenes . . . they can, in the interest of
humanity in general, send out hints as to what will take place in the near future. Perhaps they
send out scouts to make personal contacts for . . . determining the reactions of every-day people
[The “test” I mention above]. Perhaps it is done as a “smoke screen” to temporarily keep secret
the real work which is going on until such time that the people are prepared to meet this new era
. . .
“There are perhaps many bases of operation already established on, under and above this
earth . .
“. . . [A]nd which have been established for study purposes and for keeping alive a story
which must eventually be brought before all people. If given in small doses, the general
acceptance will be made over a period of time, and will take place almost naturally.
“Let us imagine, then, that this . . . is being carried on by a universal group of men and
women with contacts in every government in the world . . .” Somehow, I’m sure all this sounds
familiar. So, already a pattern is being historically suggested. And the above was posed as a
supposition. But whether you perceive the above as prophetic or apocryphal, this situation
briefing resounds with the future we find today, in 2009!
The terms for naming the players, or ‘insiders,’ were quite generic back in the golden era
of UFO awakening. Yet, today we are presented the identities of specific “factions,” as
adversaries, in competition to control that UFO scenario, revealed so long ago. Why?
Why is the ET presence inextricably linked to a conspiracy, good, bad, or indifferent?
And how could an official ET disclosure ever allay the social fears, implicated in this ET
situation, at this moment in history?
A recently posted outline of covert aspirations for ‘managing’ global futurism, that
includes an ET factor, is that by lecturer David Wilcock. In a synopsis Wilcock offers online
(Colbertnation.comForum), he deduces “at least five major ‘insider’ factions.” And “many
different sources,” including Rayelan Russbacher Allan, indicate the following:
(1) “The Rothschild-based ‘Illuminati.’”
(2) “The Rockefeller-based (Neo-Con) ‘New World Order’ in America.”
(3) “The true historic Knight Templars and Davidic Bloodlines.”
(4) “The New International Group” of Russian/Asian Secret Societies.
(5) “The Middle East/Order of Assassins Faction.”
Of these reported factions, Wilcock concludes that the Knight Templars, the NWO
Faction, and the Rothschild ‘Illuminati,’ are those controllers possessing “ET-derived
technologies,” or “UFO-style flying craft.”
3
Strategically speaking, we would advise noticing that these reported “factions” are
perceived to be competing adversaries, thus fragmented in their aspirations.
This returns us to our non-ironic lesson about our shifting realities. The pattern has
changed little in the last 50 years. Now, let us delve deeper into the UFO record, as opposed to
what little is exposed on TV.
Resurrecting The Hidden Ground
The facts below have been readily available from ufological history for decades. But, we
found them languishing there. They provide an unforeseen set of perceptions, invaluable, but
seemingly forgotten in ufology today. The set of facts at issue comprise a pattern of unofficial
ET disclosure; a pattern of contradictory positions taken by our U.S. military. This pattern is that
of both confirming and/or denying UFOs. This confusing circumstance was formally discovered
by Donald E. Keyhoe. And in his book “Flying Saucers: Top Secret” (1960), page 242, Keyhoe
describes his evidence for these “official” complications.
A simple history of the unofficial ET disclosure (or, pro and con statement) agency is as
follows: In 1997, Army Col. Philip J. Corso set forth a history for this plan of action in his book,
The Day After Roswell. And when we review the record we find this principle is, in fact,
documented. See also Donald E. Keyhoe’s 1953 book, Flying Saucers From Outer Space, pages
41-43.
Unofficial disclosure incidents were reported as strategic inconsistencies: between UFO
Project reports vs. publicized statements by military spokesmen. And Major Keyhoe specifically
experienced this pattern. Keyhoe exclaimed, “Air Intelligence established Project ‘Sign’, the
first investigating agency . . . When I finished the [1949] Project report I was badly puzzled.”
Regarding persuasive ET evidence cases, “Major Jere Boggs, a Project Intelligence officer,” was
interviewed by both Keyhoe and the INS news service. Major Boggs debunked all the evidence;
but the Project report offered “suggestions of visitors from space.” The nuances of how these
contradictions are released requires an appreciation of Intel and its ‘reverse psychology.’
Making a long story short, Keyhoe’s “conclusions” include the following: “Project
‘Sign’ was created to investigate and also conceal the truth from the public. In 1949 this policy,
set by Secretary James Forrestal, was reversed at the Pentagon. It was decided to let the facts
leak out gradually, to prepare the American people. This was the reason for the April 27, 1949
report, with its suggestions of visitors from space . . . [Encounter] case summaries were shown to
a small number of Washington newsmen to continue planting the space travel idea after the
hysteria died down.” Notice: That the media was instrumental!
In Keyhoe’s book, The Flying Saucers Are Real, he presaged himself here; and he
presaged Col. Corso’s confession 46 years later in protocol. Keyhoe said, “. . . some Air Force
officials still fear a panic when the truth is officially revealed . . . [therefore] we may continue for
a long time to see the routine denials alternating with new suggestions of interplanetary travel.”
The “long time” persists to this day – coincidence?
In Raymond E. Fowler’s 1981 Casebook Of A UFO Investigator, he recognized the
“reversal” in policy, as Keyhoe coined it. Air Force spokesmen like Major Boggs above, had
disclosed debunking assessments to the press. Yet, for Life Magazine of 7 April 1952, the Air
Force then cooperated in presenting pro–ET conclusions. Fowler revived this “reversal,” saying:
“Curiously, Air Force officers working in Project Bluebook wholeheartedly cooperated with its
publication. Key UFO reports were declassified especially for Life’s use! The writers obtained”
pro-ET affirmations from “well-known” experts: e.g., “former German rocket research director
Dr. Walter Reidel,” and “renowned” aerodynamics physicist, Dr. Maurice A. Biot.
And, “[t]he Air Force did not downgrade the story as in the past . . . Much of this reversal
in Bluebook’s policy was due to an influential group within the Air Force that felt strongly that
the public should know more about the UFO problem.” This pattern has since unfolded for
decades. But ufology has basically ignored the obvious: the strategy chosen to raise public
awareness is unofficial, and covert.
In our book, Camouflage Through Limited Disclosure (2006), page 25, Major Keyhoe is
emphatically credited for advancing this evidence! Because, the facts of Keyhoe’s experience
portend further realizations. And suggest some revisionism, when analyzing the public policy,
today, of an unofficial ET disclosure.
If Major Keyhoe’s evidence is valid, there should be additional cases of the military
contradicting itself, by confirming or denying UFOs. And there is!
What follows here is more documentation of what may now be seen as a pattern of such
observed military contradictions. The pattern has taken different forms since 1947. So we
advise keeping in mind the mil-Intel operation principle: That when contingencies are called
into action, it is only done when clearly many objectives can be achieved simultaneously.
Major Keyhoe’s book reporting such military “contradictions” was published in 1960.
However, the chronology for linking the pattern of these military positions was not easy to
follow. And over the years, ufologists may have confused themselves when drawing any
absolute conclusions about it. Apparently, this is because, even to this day, researchers are not
expecting to see nor looking for military patterns of both UFO pro and con. Researchers take a
summarily abridged or condensed view: i.e., there is simply a cover-up of UFO evidence; all the
nuances of the actual set of circumstances having fallen by the wayside.
Thus, this article is another in a series for clarifying a much broader range of ufological
perception. In this way, we can appreciate better the perpetual role disinformation plays,
throughout UFO studies history. For all practical purposes (CIA?), ‘disinformation’ is:
manipulation of reality, through the introduction and spreading of credible but misleading
information. Thereby, becoming partly true, and partly not true.
Pattern Making
First, the February 1964 edition of Fate Magazine featured a piece of our UFO disclosure
puzzle. This breakthrough article was titled, Is Flying Saucer News Managed?, by Larry W.
Bryant. In 1964, Mr. Bryant was “a civilian employed by the Army at Fort Eustis Virginia, his
official capacity being that of writer-editor” (Fate).
Quoting his article, Bryant said, “In the early years of . . . Air Force flying saucer
research, the policy was to generate confusion by issuing conflicting statements to the public.
[Here, we would add, this tactic still occurs in 2009. But an alternate ‘authority’ presents the pro
and con today, i.e., TV]. Later, . . . A.F. information experts launched the program of
disseminating . . . “solved” UFO cases while keeping the secrecy lid on the unsolved ones. And
now the Pentagon says . . . the saucers . . . could be extraterrestrial machines but denies that it
ever has had any data supporting the theory . . . in the meantime, the A.F. still chases the UFOs,
still publicly ridicules reputable UFO witnesses, and still prohibits its personnel from publicly
discussing unsolved cases. All these tactics comprise the current UFO news management
program . . . [emphasis added].
“[T]his program is not just . . . federal . . . law enforcement agencies at the state, county,
and city” jurisdictions are also involved.
Much of Bryant’s report literally quotes various police officials. They candidly briefed
Bryant on the police/military procedures. And, of course, the fact that Bryant’s recognition of an
actual “news management” policy is based on these quotes, by involved police – it begs the
question: Why did these authorities reveal to Bryant such a policy even existed?
The emphasis our article applies to Bryant’s investigation, logically results from the prior
45 years of pattern recognition, unavailable until now. Plus, the public officials Bryant quoted
were very candid with him about their UFO info protocol. From the city of Suffolk, Virginia,
Bryant quoted Police Chief L.B. Butler, “All information is furnished to the military. . . As to
releasing to others we would have no objections after same had been released to the military
services.”
Official HUMINT Ufology
Next, let us correlate an even more persuasive citation from our ufological history. The
following proves to be a case in point of military-Intel management of civilian UFO knowledge;
and it is perhaps a precedent for what occurred, more covertly, with researcher Bill Moore in
about 1981.
Thirteen years after Larry Bryant’s Fate article, a book by Leonard H. Stringfield was
published (1977). In Situation Red, pioneer researcher Stringfield confirmed Major Keyhoe’s
discovery of UFO briefing contradictions by the military. Thus, with our vantage of retrospect, a
pattern indeed has emerged. And our working hypothesis re this pattern, is that it is a
camouflaged ‘human intelligence’ gathering strategy (HUMINT), about ET encounters; as
opposed to simply the military contradicting itself about the reality of UFO incidents. Sorting
out the evidence for this is obviously awkward to admit to – so, ufology has settled on the
simpler “UFO cover-up” position. The ‘politically incorrect’ implication being: when ufology
ultimately obtained severely redacted FOIA Intel documents on UFOs, one of the equally, if not
more, important purposes for the redaction is hiding incriminating facts (not UFOs). That the
mil-Intel has been spying on civilians and violating the Constitution. No minor distinction.
Leonard Stringfield, like his fellow researchers, did publicly oppose the appearance of
UFO confirmations becoming a military secret. Therefore, Stringfield was perplexed at his own
experience, when his UFO investigator skills were solicited by the military directly. The
following account is of Stringfield’s involvement with the Air Force Ground Observer Corps.
Notice, it was over 20 years after Stringfield’s following witnessing whereas, his parts of the
pattern were formally published.
During a UFO wave in 1955, Stringfield was recruited to participate in the UFO-info
gathering procedure (HUMINT); this also became an exchange of information: “On September
9, 1955, Captain Hugh McKenzie of the Air Defense Command in Columbus, Ohio, phoned”
Stringfield. Captain McKenzie wanted “my cooperation, a means to get up-to-the-minute
sighting reports from my vast network of sources,” Stringfield declared. Stringfield founded a
UFO investigation group (CRIFO), and also published a newsletter. Thus, Stringfield agreed.
He was given a special access phone-code, and “all expenses were to be paid by the Air Force.”
Stringfield’s “official cooperation was soon spelled out. Said [Cpt] McKenzie, ‘My only request
is that you not ask any questions’.”
Stringfield later learned what news was being “managed” from coordinator Frank
Whitecotton, of the Ground Observer Corps of the Ohio Valley Civil Defense Authority. So, the
plot thickened at a time when UFO activities were ascending to being a fixture of public
experience; and prior to the time of total nationwide radar monitoring of American airspace. In
so doing, a principle of indispensible ‘human intelligence’ gathering became part of official
ufological interplay.
7
Once Stringfield’s sighting reports were screened and processed, “and the UFO was
confirmed by radar, jet interceptors were to be scrambled.” Thus, as detailed in our book (2006),
this policy of striving to shoot UFOs with fighter jets, is revealed extensively, via former New
Mexico State Representative Andrew Kissner, and Linda Moulton Howe. You might say,
methods of ‘human intelligence’ (HUMINT) gathering about UFOs was crucial to the military.
The societal nature of reported UFO encounters, prompted a means for getting leads Intel might
not get otherwise. And this is evident, as the principle applies to other areas of ET data gathering
today. In other words, this pattern amounts to national security measures of HUMINT
interactive methods, as applied to civilian populations, covertly or overtly.
In the 1950’s, the Ground Observer Corps was apparently crucial to the policy of
intending to aggressively intercept UFOs. GOC began in the 1951 period, by order of Secretary
of the Air Force, Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Chief of Staff. GOC had nearly 800,000 civilians
throughout Amer ica, repor t ing
“sightings” of foreign aircraft to the Air
Force. UFO reality would obviously then
be competently observed! Thus, a trained
network of civilians obliged to report
UFO data by default. And this is what
Stringfield actually realized he was
involved with.
The coincidence of confirming
UFO reality, via Stringfield and the
GOC, surfaced on 23 August 1955.
During a wave of sightings, Stringfield
remarked, “a bewildering incident
occurred.” Three UFOs were confirmed
on radar; an A.F. Reserve Major phoned
Stringfield from the GOC to alert him of jet interceptors in his area. “[T]he interceptors made
contact, and . . . chased the UFO!” UFO confirmations continued, and Stringfield said, “From a
‘researcher’s’ standpoint, the incident was extraordinary! Here, . . . was evidence, according to
radar confirmation of a solid body, or machine; evidence, according to [trained] GOC observers,
of its control and maneuverability; evidence, of the Air Force’s policy to scramble and intercept
the UFOs; and evidence, of our government’s concern over UFOs invading American skies
[emphasis added].
“Equally extraordinary, I thought, was the fact that the entire incident was ‘cleared’ for
publication in my newsletter, Orbit.”
Stringfield received his clearance to publish the official UFO confirmations directly from
a GOC superintendent. This man “volunteered additional information regarding the radar
trackings;” and Stringfield called the Greater Cincinnati Airport, finding, “They too, admitted
that unidentified blips were on their radar.” All of this officially contradicting the cover-up
thesis.
Stringfield then expressed having a breakthrough disclosure moment: “Stunned, my only
rationalization [for this incident] was that the Air Force had suddenly changed from their
program of silence, or that I was being taken under their wing for special duty. . .” This latter
option is what appears to have occurred with Bill Moore, specifically as a HUMINT quid pro
quo!
Of course, what we are concluding today, with decades of insight, is that Stringfield’s
deductions, re pro and con contradictions, were on the right track. But, our current correlations
show, the UFO issue is not as simple as that of either candor or secrecy. Stringfield supports this
factor also: paradoxically, he was confided in with UFO confirmations, and cleared to publicize
this in his newsletter – yet, the press rejected the UFO evidence. The “contradiction” was that
any official evidence Stringfield was cleared to publicize on his own, was not provided to the
press.
A reporter contacted “Wright-Patterson AFB to get confirmation of the incident. It was
officially denied.” Also, the reporter told Stringfield the A.F. “spokesman claimed . . . he knew
nothing of [Stringfield’s] duties with the Air Defense Command.”
Meanwhile, on 16 March 1956, Major General John A. Samford himself, Director of Air
Force Intelligence, paradoxically wrote personally to Stringfield! Gen. Samford told Stringfield
reporting such as yours “have become an important part of the UFO picture.” This is the game,
the pattern of confirmation/contradiction.
It is not ironic, therefore, that Gen. Samford’s sentiment carries over into our future of
2009. Evidence we have now compiled, clearly illustrates how information (HUMINT) is made
accessible through civilian pursuits of experiences/encounters. And these civilian sources
continue to be “an important part of the UFO picture” for official covert applications. The best
and most under-reported set of cases for validating this analysis are, a distinctive subset of ETabduction.
These are the human intervention cases of re-abducted, or harassed, alien abductees
(MILAB).
A Subtle System
Further corroboration returns us to my references above re the Bill Moore experience. It
would be crucial, as revisionist ufology, to briefly review Moore’s collaboration for purposes of
deeper policy recognition.
Bill Moore and Charles Berlitz co-authored the first specialized book on a specific
crashed saucer incident: The Roswell Incident (1980). Predictively, soon thereafter a collective
of many personalities recruited Moore’s participation. This was an unorthodox information
gathering exchange. And Moore reported that the collective were Intel liaisons to ‘insider’ UFO
data. Ultimately, the opportunity Moore accepted was admonished by the UFO community.
Albeit, Moore claims his cooperation only, as an info exchange partner.
However, our revisionist perception in this article, is that the Bill Moore case is just a
covert-variation of what occurred earlier with Leonard Stringfield. Within a long range strategy
of HUMINT data collection on UFO/ETs, the Moore scenario would be predictive. This is the
game embedded in ufology. And discerning the logic of this may require our accepting its
reverse psychology. We hope to finally place the Moore experience in a coherent pattern of
evidence.
Moore also had a personal confidant during his Intel encounter, named Jaime Shandera.
On 17 March 1993, Mr. Shandera gave a lecture at a Los Angeles MUFON meeting. The title of
Shandera’s talk was, “The ‘Aviary’, The Government, and MJ12.” I quote Shandera from this
lecture: “Now, the ’Aviary’ got [its] name because its first source developed into two sources,
then three sources, then four sources . . . Eventually, by the end of 1990 there were 12 high level
sources. All of them interconnected in a very interesting fashion; all feeding us information out
of the same information loop. They were all, in one sense or another, known to each other. And
in each case there was some level of connection . . .
“In every case, with every single piece of information, with every single discussion that
you ever have, we have to automatically . . . know that there will be ‘disinformation’ involved
with it! It’s a standard operating procedure. There will always be disinformation. So, the task,
constantly, is how do you discern disinformation from fact”?
If there exists a ‘bitter pill’ that ufologists find it hardest to swallow, the prolific presence
of disinfo may well be it! Historically, the disinfo issue proved to be the ufological occupational
hazard that Moore and Shandera discovered it is, first hand. Their Intel experience is invaluable.
Because, their “getting involved with the government” evoked a breakthrough: their eyewitness
testimony re the “standard operating procedure” of ‘insider’ ufology. Disinformation!
This tells us volumes about why an Official ET Disclosure has not been an option; why
unofficial modes of ET disclosure better serve the covert form of Intel ufology. As the covertufology
proceeds parallel to our civilian ufology. And the unavoidable cosmic intrigue compels
the ongoing social studies of ufology. It would be rather foolish to presume that shifting our
paradigm of human history, onto an ET intervention scenario, will not be an uphill struggle.
Thus, the Bill Moore interlude continues to play out even today. Two of Moore’s
‘Aviary’ liaisons now counterveil his keeping their identities secret. Robert Collins and Richard
Doty (AFOSI) published their (disinfo) exploits in their book, Exempt From Disclosure (2005).
And so, as disinforming Roswell incident witness Frank Kaufman declared, to
investigator Don Schmitt: even facing his own death, Kaufman refused to reveal why “The
game continues!” During Bill Moore’s lecture at UFO Expo West 11-12 May 1991, he
exclaimed, “So! Disinformation is sometimes the name of the game. And there’s a lot of it
around. And you have to be very careful of it. There is even some of it in the whole MJ12
story.” Moore was involved in the first phase of Majestic document leaks to the public at large.
The Majestic docs have been discerned as largely credible, due to documentarian analysis
arranged by Dr. Robert Wood (MUFON). Thus, the question is begged: as to whether the
10
ultimate objectives of AFOSI liaisons to Bill Moore, were intended to culminate in Moore’s
access to MJ12 documentation?
Moore describes his Intel rapport as follows: “Back in the early 1980s, I was . . .
involved with an Intelligence project that was ostensibly gathering data on the subject of UFOs,
and on people who were researching them. And I was approached, and asked to cooperate. I
was rather fascinated with the approach . . . just to see what I could learn . . . [Moore was a
“board member” of Aerial Phenomena Research Organization].
“I was what was called a ‘controlled informant.’ And I worked for an individual that was
essentially a ‘handler.’ And I was reporting to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations” . .
. (from his lecture, 11-12 May 1991, UFO Expo West, Los Angeles) [emphasis added].
Therefore, Bill Moore’s own candid assessment, clearly comports with the
commendation to Leonard Stringfield by Director of Air Force Intelligence Gen. John A.
Samford: that such civilian contributions “have become an important part of the UFO picture.”
And with all of the above we have an objective measurement of the ET learning curve we find
ourselves in.
This is the pattern that ‘the game’ is comprised of. For this system of interaction to work,
civilian data must be exchanged for info that can be verified as officially affirming the UFO/ET
reality (e.g., data releases in France, U.K., and Brazil). But decades of pattern recognition
confirms that the nature of ufology may very well have to be a sociological process. Quoting
again, the Menger book cited above, “ . . . to temporarily keep secret the real work . . . going on
until such time that the people are prepared to meet this new era. . . for keeping alive a story
which must eventually be brought before all people. If given in small doses, the general
acceptance will be made over a period of time, and will take place almost naturally.”
Moreover, in our book Camouflage Through Limited Disclosure, we credit the hands-on
confessions of Col. Philip J. Corso. On this subject of acclimating society to an ET presence,
Corso claims his own complicity: “part of the secret was disclosed through declassification [yet]
. . .
. . .”For all the years after Roswell . . . we never hid the truth from anybody, we just
camouflaged it. It was always there, people just didn’t know what to look for or recognize it for
what it was when they found it. And they found it over and over again.” The point here, is how
all the above correlate to a coherent whole. All these chronologically disparate sources, can
independently combine to build an information structure that makes sense. It would not make
sense that such a coincidence should logically evolve, over such a long period of decades.
The Message and the Media
In Col. Corso’s book, The Day After Roswell (1997), he says, “through it all, [Lt. Gen.
Nathan] Twining stressed, there had to be a way of maintaining full deniability of the flying disk
phenomenon while actually preparing the public for a disclosure by gradually desensitizing them
. . .” Whether historically precise or not, Corso’s scenario logically allows all of the above to
form our pattern; and given the magnitude of the historical revelation we seek to understand, it
11
works. Albeit, that when we comply with this “strategy” for “preparing” society to accept ET, a
paradox appears: This “strategy,” as Corso called it, is an ET disclosure process that is also
disinforming. This is why we describe the process as a test. Independently reported experience
with this process is detailed further by Bill Moore’s colleague, J. Shandera, below.
Some researchers perceive disinformation as simply lies. Stanton Friedman “became
very frustrated at a point in time,” when he was initially collaborating with Moore during this
‘Aviary’ exchange. Friedman resigned from his role because, Shandera explained, “Stanton was
feeling that disinformation is to lie.” Friedman also holds a similar sentiment re Corso’s book.
However, Moore and Shandera persevered with the disinformers for many years. And
their hands-on experience led to a more definitively nuanced perspective: “Now, disinformation
isn’t lying. Disinformation is a misdirection on the truth. Now, you might say, ‘well that’s just
semantics.’ It is in a sense. But, once you understand Intelligence work, once you understand
how disinformation functions – you come to learn that: the bigger the disinformation program,
the more important the subject area that you’re dealing with. It’s only important subject areas
that they need to disinform on.
“And the disinformation process would be kicked in, in highest gear, when they are
trying to actually get information, from that information area, out! But, they don’t want the
information sourced. They don’t want you to be able to find out where it comes from. They
want to continue to manage it.
“So, the ‘Aviary’ became a vital tool in the process; just as ‘Deep Throat’ was a vital
tool in the ‘Watergate’ process. . .” [emphasis added].
Underscore the word “manage,” which may be synonymous with the Intel application of
disinformation. Ultimately, ufology must essentially double as a sociological ploy, wherein the
facts are managed. And certainly, the sociological effects of ufology being managed is plausible.
Because the best evidence, historically, must involve the military et al. We, again, revisit the
aforementioned Howard Menger book, 50 years ago saying, of ETs, “If given in small doses, the
general acceptance will be made over a period of time, and will take place almost naturally.”
Coincidence?
The nuance of “small doses” is delivered directly to society, today, through the electronic
‘authority’ of television. Accordingly, on 1 October 1994, Larry King Live conveyed the
following thread in our disinfo-management pattern. This was Larry King’s special, ‘The UFO
Cover-Up? Live From Area 51.’ It was propitious that, in this mainstream special about mil-
Intel secrecy, an apropos definition of “disinformation” was applied to the issue. Former
NATO/U.S. Army Officer Robert O. Dean stated, “Disinformation has several purposes: One,
it’s to muddy the water; two, it’s to get a little bit of information out, in such a way that they
want to know how people respond to it . . .”
Larry King’s program next featured his voice-over immediately saying, “Presto:
Deception and confusion!” Thus, King selectively emphasized the “one” most sensational
component of Dean’s experienced definition. A definition quite aligned with the hands-on
experience of Bill Moore and Jaime Shandera. But, Larry King inaccurately illustrated
“disinformation” as simply a program of lies, essentially. Whereas, any desirable facts leaking
out in the process, become definitive nuances that fall by the wayside.
Ultimately, Larry King challenged his guest panel with: “We’re back to this perplexing
thing as to why the government doesn’t want its citizenry to have information. It’s still
perplexing to me”? Even though, in King’s own program – or through other sources, as those
listed above – the experienced understanding of disinformation is that it is used to leak out the
facts. Paradigm shifting facts!
Larry King routinely asks for the solution to the “perplexing” ET disclosure enigma in all
his UFO programs. Yet, when King asked this of his 1 October 1994 panel, none of them
actually answered the question. The panel guests were: Kenneth Randall (no comment), Dr.
Steven Greer (commented on a different issue), Glen Campbell (no comment), Stanton Friedman
(the only one to reiterate the fact there is a perplexing issue of non-ET disclosure).
This TV scenario exemplifies the global theatre-nature of UFO/ET icons now pervading
all media. I mean this to include factual news, investigative series, fiction, pro and con, drama,
comedy, advertising, and language. In this way, media mirrors and mediates the gross learningcurve,
of our ‘global village’ to the ET-presence. Observing such a ‘strategy’ may be a sign that
‘insider’ authorities preclude taking responsibility for growing public ET awareness.
If we are to take Col. Corso seriously, he claims this ET media presence is no
coincidence. In his book, page 79, Corso says, “we denied” UFO confirmations “while
encouraging science fiction writers to make movies . . . to blow off . . . pressure concerning the
truth about flying disks. This was called camouflage through limited disclosure, and it worked.”
As Corso’s book explains this “strategy” further, it accords with the demonstration of
disinformation above; that Corso’s treatise is both defining and exhibiting this disinfo “strategy”
he avows. Perhaps, if for no other reason, because Corso is a military-minded proponent of the
ETs-are-a-threat worldview.
Our working hypothesis is not for judging the strategy. Our objective is to begin
recognizing it for what it is. A definitive exercise that ufology has neglected. But to do this, in
itself, is ufological progress. At a time when ufology still functions as if it has yet to pass the ‘is
it real’ stage of the social learning curve.
Rejecting Selective Evidence Gathering
From our perspective, these “perplexing” official policy issues re ET disclosure, are
actually quite understandable. But, achieving this vantage requires a working hypothesis that
respects serious consideration of all categories of data. This serves to remedy a self-limiting
pattern of data collection, occurring throughout all ufological history. I.e., data that researchers
consider viable, is conformed to the constraints of their own worldviews; it conforms to their
ontological comfort level. And there is an element of ‘political correctness’ to such limitations.
13
This is because UFO/ET data is unique in that it challenges your reality of self.
Therefore, at any point in time, there are certain categories of evidence that are excluded from
prevailing acceptability. Aerial Phenomena Research Organization founders Coral and Jim
Lorenzen wrote a book in response to the research limits of their own era. In Flying Saucer
Occupants (1967), the Lorenzens say, their intention was “to deal with aspects of the UFO
problem which have been for the most part overlooked or sidestepped.” And this investigative
handicap is a perennial drawback to the ufology of 2009.
In an earlier passage above, I proposed some deductive logic that applies to FOIA
documents. This is based on our HUMINT thesis involving eye-witnesses: e.g., the subcategory
of ET-abduction cases, known for Intelligence gathering agents becoming involved in
their experiences. We deduce, therefore, that one primary reason for the ‘blacked-out,’ or
redacted quality of ufological FOIA docs is to protect incriminating HUMINT methods and
sources. One basis for this probability is found, first hand, when studying these cases of
systematically harassed or re-abducted ET-abductees. This form of secrecy is clearly to be
expected.
Among the many reported details of evidence in these Re-Ab cases are various violations
of abductee civil rights. Any HUMINT method in such violation (e.g., abductees have shown
evidence of non-warranted phone-taps for years, many years before the Electronics Surveillance
Modernization Act, 2006) would not be publicized in any FOIA doc. And any covert human
involvement surfacing in abduction cases, complicates an already erroneous database. Such
covert methods, we would presume to be explained in the name of ‘national security.’ Logically,
then, no HUMINT FOIA documentation would obviously preclude any and all forms of Official
UFO/ET public disclosures. But not un-official disclosures.
This returns us to ufology itself. When categories of substantial evidence are arbitrarily
excluded from consideration, ufology itself becomes a proponent of disinformation, by default!
In turn, issues of ET reality versus policy making versus non-disclosure, become skewed; or,
quoting Larry King, the UFO issue of disclosure is “perplexing.”
To date Larry King demonstrates TV advocacy of ufology. But Larry King has yet to
broadcast a fully comprehensive perspective of data versus its global impact on policy making.
Larry King Live mirrors society: Society is still in the ‘is it real?’ stage of ET acclimation.
Our thesis is that human re-abducted ET-abduction cases are a most fertile arena for
recognizing where all these issues converge. There has been no trend in ufology to acknowledge
ReAb cases. Yet, the ufological quandary of reconciling ET-abduction may benefit by doing so.
Fortunately, we have many books about abductees themselves to document ReAb/MILAB
evidence. These books are as follows:
Casebook Of A UFO Investigator, 1981, Raymond E. Fowler
The Andreasson Affair, Phase Two, 1982, Raymond E. Fowler
Lost Was The Key, 1993, Leah Haley
Alien Jigsaw, 1993, Katharina Wilson
Taken, 1994, Karla Turner, Ph.D.
14
Abducted!, 1994, Debbie Jordan and Kathy Mitchell
Breakthrough, 1995, Whitley Strieber
The Excyles, 1995, Mia Adams
Beyond My Wildest Dreams, 1995, Kim Carlsberg
Connections, 1995, Anna Jamerson and Beth Collings
Project Open Mind, 1996, Katharina Wilson
Diary of An Abduction, 2001, Angela Thompson Smith, Ph.D.
The Keepers, 2006, Jim Sparks
Walking Between Worlds, 2007, Ann Andrews
Abducted By Aliens, 2008, Chuck Weiss.
A pending addition to these many, personally reported, accounts may produce some
ReAb category revisionism. This is the applied ReAb/abduction criteria to the early abduction
case of Betty and Barney Hill. Such analysis of the Hill case is being done by Joe Montaldo,
Director of the International Community for Alien Research (icar@cox.net), New Orleans.
Montaldo and ICAR have organized ET-abduction research for ten years. And among his
immense total of abduction cases, Montaldo discerned a substantial number of human
intervention, or ReAb/MILAB cases. This is consistent with the many ReAb cases, from the
American Southeast, documented in Dr. Karla Turner’s book Taken (1994).
Applying his systematic criteria for verifying abductions, Montaldo has re-investigated
the Betty and Barney Hill case. Thus, Montaldo has unearthed previously overlooked ReAb
criteria when reviewing this case. Such a revised classification of the Hill case is made
plausible, due to closely examined comparisons with a plethora of ReAb cases. These cases have
been increasingly identified, primarily in the last twenty years. As the many books citing human
intervention evidence, during this period, have testified. And if shown to accurately re-classify
the Hill case, this helps correct the erroneous elements of the greater UFO database. So that
ufology will prevent perpetuating its own disinformation.
Official Contradictions and Civilian Source Management
We have returned full circle now, to the historically observed pattern of mil-Intel policy
contradictions. Astute investigator Raymond E. Fowler also reported this. In his Casebook of A
UFO Investigator (1981), Fowler addresses “the conflicting statements” in Chapter Two. The
crux of the matter condensed down into two exercises in info/social management: “The CIA
sponsored” 1953 Robertson Panel “to examine the Air Force’s best UFO cases,” versus, the
ongoing A.F. Project Bluebook for investigating UFOs, ending in 1969.
Fowler reports, the Robertson “panel’s real purpose and final recommendations were
obscured by conflicting statements. In 1956, former Bluebook Chief Edward J. Ruppelt wrote
that the CIA told him the panel had recommended” Project Bluebook be “quadrupled in size” for
more thorough investigation. Ruppelt revealed this in his book The Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects. He quoted the CIA, saying, “the American public should be told every detail of
every phase of the investigation.” This quote does not sound like a cover-up to me.
15
Yet, the Robertson Panel’s report was classified until 1966. Then, the Air Force released
a R.P. report copy that excluded those recommendations Ruppelt had disclosed. And
commenting on this R.P. contradiction in his book, The UFO Controversy (1975), Dr. David
Jacobs observed, “If Ruppelt understood and reported correctly, it remains a mystery why the
CIA gave out this false information.” Of course, in the period of Jacobs’ book (1975), or
Fowler’s book (1981) these (management) contradictions were, indeed, a mystery. What is
missing from their earlier analysis is the ‘standard operating’ ploy of ‘reverse psychology.’ Over
the course of ensuing decades, history indicates these nuances are not mysterious trivia – they are
definitive correlations! Likewise, for mounting ReAb evidence, perceived as an anomaly.
Although challenging to a politically neutral approach to ufology, ReAb/MILAB
evidence actually makes sense. It comports with the HUMINT pattern above. And the ReAb
incidents are essentially covert
variations on a policy precedented in
official mi l i tary intel l igence
procedures. An early example is the
Joint Army-Navy-Ai r Force
publication (JANAP) – 146. This
directive specifies the priority of Intel
evidence received from non-military
sources.
The Aerospace Defense
Command (ADC) and its authority
were “responsible for unknown aerial
phenomena reports in any manner,
and the provisions of . . . (JANAP) –
146 provide for the processing of
reports received from non-military
sources.” This quote was from “a
copy of a Pentagon correspondence
dated May 26, 1970 – a full five
months after the Air Force allegedly
ceased investigating UFO reports,”
officially signed. Another mysterious
official contradiction reported by
Raymond E. Fowler, Casebook of A
UFO Investigator, (1981). These
HUMINT procedures “were initially                Aviation Week Magazine 9 May 1960 official civilian
imposed on airline pilots . . . on
February 17, 1954.”
And these factors accord with
General Samford’s commendation of
L. Stringfield’s

research contributions, above; also, with the later AFOSI solicitations of Bill Moore, and
including Majestic doc access. Bringing civilians into the field of Intel-Ufology is a paradox that
cannot simply be explained as a “cover-up” of UFO information. Civilians report their
experiences, as those many named here have done: i.e., un-official disclosure. This clarifies an
official value placed on all sources of intelligence about “unknown aerial phenomena,” including
civilians.
Thus, when civilian “aerial phenomena” research began documenting a series of ETabduction
cases (1980s) – this precedent, for Intel pursuit of “non-military” sources, would apply
to civilian abductees. And this logically accords with why ReAb/MILAB cases have
subsequently been documented for 20 years, now.
To review, decades of hindsight demand that disinforming or contradictory data now be
revisited. Especially when these historic details infer a direct relationship to policy decisions the
public seeks to understand. In Edward Ruppelt’s own book (p. 200), he too briefly
acknowledges the official UFO project contradictions. Ruppelt refrained, “The people on
previous UFO projects had gone off on tangents [re] the identity of the UFOs, they first declared
they were spacecraft, then . . . in a complete about-face, they took the whole UFO problem as
one big belly laugh . . . Why they did this I don’t know . . . Giving a final answer would require a
serious decision – probably one of the most serious since the beginning of man.” And it
becomes ever clear, that official authority defers taking any responsibility for making such a
decision . . . in the cases of ReAbs, we can see why!
In 1970, Raymond Fowler was a chief investigator for the National Investigations
Committee on Aerial Phenomena. The NICAP board of directors was then headed by “’Col.
(USAF-Ret.) Joseph Bryan, III…founder and original chief of the CIA’s Psychological Warfare
Staff (1947-53)’.” In Fowler’s Casebook…, he quoted there an exposé of CIA involvement in
NICAP, by Todd Zechel, Just Cause bulletin, Jan. 1979.
Zechel (Fowler) disclosed that Col. Bryan first approached NICAP via Keyhoe in 1959
(Bryan was Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force). But Keyhoe, thus, “suspected an
AF plot to infiltrate” NICAP. So, Bryan set suspicions “at ease by allowing himself to be quoted
as saying: ‘The UFOs are interplanetary devices systematically observing the Earth, either
manned or remote-controlled, or both. Information on UFOs has been officially withheld. This
policy is dangerous’.” Such statements were also shrewd ‘reverse psychology’.
“The Game Continues”
In June 2009, my collaborator, Melinda Leslie, discussed the issue of ReAb/MILAB
cases occurring in Europe, with Maurizio Baiata. Formerly, Baiata was the Italian edition Editor
in Chief of Rollingstone Magazine; currently, managing editor of the Italian monthly Area 51
magazine. As a prominent ufological voice in Europe, Sr. Baiata impressed Melinda Leslie with
his knowledge of European ReAb/MILAB evidence. Because, obvious questions are begged
about the likelihood of foreign MILAB incidents occurring, if they are credibly documented in
America.
17
Leslie summed up Baiata’s awareness as follows: “Maurizio said he has reported on
MILAB cases in Italy. He says that material has been sent to his magazine, where people have
written about the MILAB incidents. Maurizio said, ‘This evidence is an issue in Europe.’ And it
is so nice to have a major European researcher say, ‘This is an important area.’
“Maurizio said, ‘Yes!’ It is an issue there, and there are cases in Italy, and there are cases
in France. And Baiata went on into some detail about this evidence. And that there was
conversation about this among European researchers.
“And Baiata explained that, actually most of the cases reported in European countries
seem to involve French military, or French and U.S. military, together. Maurizio said, ‘We have
cases of MILABs in Italy, that are happening to Italian citizens . . .
“’When we see military personnel, it is predominantly French military personnel, with
the exception of some Americans.’”
Melinda Leslie reported she was previously uninformed about receiving such clearly
candid confirmations re Euro-MILABs existing: “Obviously, this is a whole new area of
research . . . this is, point blank, new to me!”
Maurizio Baiata was also well aware of the pattern, where in the case of American
personnel it tends to be U.S. Naval uniforms being reported. That ReAbs are U.S. Naval
Intelligence-run, and there is a logical history to this.
In conclusion, Melinda’s last point about a logical history is the essence of our working
hypothesis, outlined here. The documented facts and data correlated here, most importantly are
historically consistent and continuous. Therefore, the facts for confirming such a consistent
pattern of procedures, should never be expected, had mere coincidence provoked their existence.
Lastly, we revisit an unofficial disclosure by author/producer Robert Emenegger. His
1974 book confirms recommendations in the original Robertson Panel report, affirmed above by
Edward J. Ruppelt. Emenegger’s book, UFOs Past, Present and Future, documents these
correlations. Facts, “that, up until the printing of this book, were not public knowledge,” as
Emenegger introduced them. And there the facts have languished.
Ruppelt’s version of the R.P. report actually “recommended” public disclosure of “every
detail” of future official UFO studies. Thus, when preparing his own UFO book (p. 55),
Emenegger was confided in by CIA agents about their investigations. Emenegger clarifies, “I
had touched bases with the CIA and no apparent disapproval was expressed” to prevent his
reporting. The case he reported involved a CIA/“Office of Naval Intelligence” pursuit of a
civilian ET contactee. I.e., Emenegger’s book has become a manageable opportunity for
publicizing the fact that such Intel-HUMINT cases of civilian data exist.
18
Emenegger’s source for this 1959 case was Lt. Col. Robert Friend, former head of the
A.F. Project Bluebook. Emenegger disclosed, “I have the actual [memorandum] account of the
incident by one of the agents present at the time. The names of seven men present are listed . . .”
Emenegger’s experience, again, contradicts the ‘cover-up’ thesis. That, the CIA
officially withholds all the facts of their ufological involvement. This means, securing UFO
facts from civilian sources or otherwise. Not ironically, the details of this incident also reveal the
CIA/ONI pursuit of ESP/paranormal characteristics of ET contact sources. This case contradicts
the ‘P.R.’ position that official policy is to decrease or eliminate civilian UFO reports.
“The game” of releasing carefully selected ET confirmations continues: In March 1983,
Linda Moulton Howe met with Robert Emenegger. Howe asked if she could include an
interview of Emenegger in her planned HBO documentary. But Emenegger “said his DOD
sources told him not to participate in my documentary,” Howe recounted (An Alien Harvest
1989, p. 142). Yet . . .
Emenegger’s own documentary, UFO, Past, Present and Future, retitled UFOs: It Has
Begun, was actually facilitated by these same “DOD sources.” The producer, Allan F. Sandler,
and Emenegger were intentionally cleared for UFO validation by these DOD sources, including
USAF Colonels William “Billy” Coleman and George Weinbrenner. As our thesis discerns,
official policy actions comprise a historic pattern of contradictions: The CIA-sponsored
Robertson Panel advocated a UFO-debunking media campaign; then, our DOD branches actually
facilitated media productions like Emenegger’s, which they aided, in promoting UFO
legitimacy!
It was edifying, therefore, to find an article in Fortean Times No. 248, 2009 pursuing the
media component to these sublime circumstances. The article was rather cynical or myopic in
its title of The Lies Are Out There. However, I commend the authors, Matthew Alford and
Robbie Graham, with quoting Robert Emenegger’s recent hindsight on his role above.
Propitiously, the authors concluded from his candor, that “Emenegger seems as baffled by the
whole affair 36 years on as anyone: “’Were we had? Were we being used?’ he asks.”
Apparently, Emenegger overlooked the ET management pattern his CIA/DOD interactions were
prompting him to recognize: The USAF had first permitted Emenegger to feature its actual
‘smoking gun’ alien landing film; then, they withdrew it. The same type of offer was made to
Linda M. Howe. The conscious Intel byproduct of such UFO-data access results in prominent
media persons being persuaded, first hand, that the issue is legitimate. Then, they all play their
roles avidly publicizing UFO facts. Meanwhile, our authorities evade taking any responsibility
for it.
Alford and Graham asked Emenegger who sanctioned the USAF cooperation with his
film? They explain, “Emenegger put this question to Pentagon spokesman, Col. Coleman, who
informed him: ‘The Secretary of the Air Force gave us the order to cooperate.’” Why would
Emenegger cite personal experience that confirms Col. Corso and Keyhoe, above? Here, USAF
“wholeheartedly cooperated” with another pro-ET presentation, just as Raymond Fowler (and
Keyhoe) reported they did previously for the 7 April 1952 layout in Life Magazine.
19
Our thesis, is that ufological developments such as these itemized here comprise what
Melinda Leslie and I call the paradigm of ET non-disclosure. Yet, a ‘cover-up’, and the
incidence of non-disclosure, or unofficial ET disclosure, are not the same. For all practical
purposes, a ‘cover-up’ only exists to the degree that ET disclosure is occurring un-officially.
And the first hand experiences with this ET disclosure alternative have been clearly
documented, historically, by: Donald E. Keyhoe, Leonard H. Stringfield, Larry W. Bryant,
Robert Emenegger, Allan F. Sandler, William Moore, Jaime Shandera, Linda M. Howe, Robert
Oechsler, Bill Uhouse, Philip J. Corso, and Timothy Good.
Notice, that the sequence of experience cited by these figures is a clear chronology ---
and it continues. The facts speak for themselves!
• Please read the art icle, Abductees and Beyond at this l ink
http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/abducteesandbeyond.html
The Un-Official ET Disclosure and Its History of Covert-UFOlogy