Negative Mass Created…?

alternative news
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 19, 2017

Well, folks, I’m back… sort of. I’m still quite tired, and trying to rest as much as possible. As you may have guessed my sore throat was more than that, it was full blown tonsilitis which had to be beaten back by anti-biotic IV drips and you name it. So as I indicated yesterday, Ms. K.M. has graciously contributed some new blogs to our “contributor posts” category to help tide things through.  For those wondering about the lost vidchat, yes, I do plan to reschedule, probably around the end of the month, as soon as I think my voice will stand the strain and not land me back in the same mess.

Meanwhile, of course, the news does not stop, and this story was seen and shared by so many I have to blog about it, and, of course, indulge my taste for high octane speculation. Indeed, this story has so many implications for our world I don’t know where to begin. Nonetheless, here it is: physicists have created a substance, in this case, ruibidium apparently suspended in a solution, and then super-cooled, with negative mass:

Physicists create fluid with ‘negative mass’

Researchers used lasers to cool the liquid in a tiny bowl. When scientists broke the bowl, the rubidium atoms rushed outwards. Scientists applied a second set of lasers to alter the spin of the out-rushing atoms. As a result, the atoms took on negative mass.

“Once you push, it accelerates backwards,” said Forbes. “It looks like the rubidium hits an invisible wall.”

Researchers say their latest experiments — detailed in the journal Physical Review Letters — were simpler and offered greater control over negative mass than previous attempts.

Where’s the high octane here? For one thing, it confirms in a major way what has long been suspected, namely, that matter near absolute zero would take on coherent properties and perhaps exhibit kontrabaric (negative mass) properties. This has been suspected since Evgenny Podkletnov first noticed strange “negative mass” like properties when experimenting in the 1990s with super-conducting rings. One effect is that negative mass – as the article indicates, and if we may speak analogically – acts as a kind of phase conjugation mirror: force applied moves it not in the direction of the applied force, but against it. Now, I mention that strange analogy simply to exhibit one possible use of this negative mass effect: phase conjugation, of an apparently almost perfect nature, which of course, would have benefits for various optical technologies, including, of course, weaponry applications. That of course is stretching things way beyond the article, and in a very bizarre direction, going way out on to the end of the twig where the weight of the speculation far exceeds the evidence and reasoning strength of the twig. Perhaps I’m simply loopy and still feeling the aftereffects of antibiotics. Then again, such bizarre brainstorming is a trademark of people in various agencies, say, like DARPA. We’ll get back to them in a moment.

However, and as I think will be obvious, the much more interesting possibility here are the lift and propulsion possibilities. Obviously, negative mass isn’t quite the same thing as “anti-gravity”, but it’s in the same stadium, and, most importantly, the new experiment is much simpler in terms of its mechanisms of controlling the phenomenon:

Researchers say their latest experiments — detailed in the journal Physical Review Letters — were simpler and offered greater control over negative mass than previous attempts.

“What’s a first here is the exquisite control we have over the nature of this negative mass, without any other complications,” said Forbes.

Now, normally my “routine” here is to do the “high octane speculation” stuff last, and then sign off with my usual “see you on the flip side.” But today I hope you noticed something about that article, which is why I got to the high octane speculation stuff first. Notice, that as far as the article is concerned, the new “negative mass” fluid is good for only a few “practical applications” that will not directly impact the world our children or grandchildren will live in:

The success may allow for exploration of strange phenomena like black holes and neutron stars.

Black holes and neutron stars. From a substance with negative mass, that accelerates in the opposite direction of any force applied to it.

I can hear the guys at the Diabolically Apocalyptic Research Projects Agency (DARPA) even now: “Yup. That’s about it folks. Neutron stars and black holes. Nothing to see here, just a bunch of arcane theoretical stuff. No practical applications. Move along… nothing to see here…”

Now, what if we spun a bunch of this stuff up in the… oh never mind…

But speaking of “spin”, here’s another version of the story:

https://news.wsu.edu/2017/04/10/negative-mass-created-at-wsu/

Note, this statement:

To create negative mass, the researchers applied a second set of lasers that kicked the atoms back and forth and changed the way they spin. Now when the rubidium rushes out fast enough, if behaves as if it has negative mass.

In other words, the implication is that rotation, and mass, are related, and if that’s the case, then perhaps we’re looking at a phenomenon with broken symmetry and polarity. Electrogravitics, anyone?

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Palaces Of The Mind: Memory Study Says Anyone Can Remember More

6be36-iu
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 18, 2017

(Folks, while I’ve been sick and trying to rest, Ms. K.M. has graciously contributed some blogs. Don’t forget, this is a new feature here. I hope you’ll accept my heartfelt thanks for your prayers and well wishes.  I am going to continue to  rest this week, and hopefully be back with you soon. Because of this I will be blogging more “thinly” the next couple of weeks until I can get back on my daily schedule. God bless.  JPF)

 ——————————

One of the great challenges in this age of easy access to information is how to retain memorization ability. We often hear people complaining that they can’t remember anything, and we remark to those with such a facility that they have a “great memory.” So is this ability innate or is it something that anyone can adopt?

I remember Charles Wang of Computer Associates once remark in Information Week that he hired programmers who could remember “64 objects located in 64 rooms of a giant house.” In his view, structured recall was an essential element in a great programmer.

Well lo and behold a recent article in the journal Neuron relating the results of a study of memory carried out by scientists from the Max Plank Institute, Stanford University, and Radbound University in the Netherlands. The team studied “memory athletes” and controls in an effort to understand if ordinary people could be taught the “art of memory.”

If the expression, “the art of memory” rings a bell, that’s because Joseph Farrell wrote about the art of memory in Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age. It’s also the title of a book by that jaw-dropping scholar of history, Frances Yates, of the Warburg Institute and the University of London. Her book, The Art of Memory, describes for us the ancient mnemonic techniques, copied from the Greeks, and they learned it from the Egyptians. Who the Egyptians learned it from is anyone’s guess. Memory systems evolved in the long past when paper and writing did not exist or were difficult to access after cataclysms destroyed other methods of recording and recall.

One of the techniques described in the study calls to punctuate something someone wants to remember by associating it with some terrifying event. It seems that human memory works best when it tackles the primary functions of food, shelter, safety and sex. This should be a surprise to no one. One of the challenges in analysis of ancient texts is the inevitable feeling that one is reading a garbled version of “something else.” The texts of the ancient myths, for example, are outlandish and unbelievable to modern minds. Perhaps these stories were punctuated by the descendant receivers in order to solidify them.

Well, now you too can cultivate your inner genius and learn these techniques in an ordered way. A KickStarter campaign is now active to bring you software based upon these ancient techniques.

With memory training, after several weeks, the very performance behavior of the brain changes and memory skills translate into better functioning all around. So the performance changes wrought by the techniques are somewhat permanent if refreshed from time to time.

Joseph and I share the view that encouraging analogical thinking has even a more profound impact on memory than the techniques described in the study. Why? Analogy allows mosaics of thought to be constructed, stored, remembered and imbued with meaning and purpose, which is both a powerful motivator and the benefit; and which goes infinitely beyond the rote techniques in the study because the value of the information picture, your personal information field if you will, is so high.

Since the chemical, biological, and educational assault of the last 65 years on humanity are the techniques of a revolutionary process to create a cultural tabula rasa for which a new religion, a new politics, and a new culture are to be imprinted on all humankind, now you can, using the Art of Memory, develop even better ways of coping.

So it has never been a better time to study the truest history you can find, remember it using the techniques of the ancients, and please share it, so that the perilous songs of the post modern sirens, so compelling in their attraction, will not draw Western culture to further calamity on the rocks of the post modern shore.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Merging Laser Beams Into One Beam [Where Have I heard That Before?]

cosmic war
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 12, 2017

I received the following article this week from Mr. J.K., and when I read it, I had to smile… very nervously, for it seems that scientists have figured out how to combine several laser beams into one beam, to increase the power of the emergent beam, and also to reduce the heat generated from just one large, rather than several small, beams. That, of course, is the premise of George Lucas’ rather fanciful one-shot planet-destroying weapon from his Star Wars movies, the Death Star. But, believe it or not, that’s not what made me smile nervously, for obviously, humanity is nowhere near being able to construct an object that big to house and aim an equally gigantic laser, much less to move it through space.  What made me smile nervously was…

… well, read it for yourself:

It’s Now Possible To Combine Lasers Like In The Death Star

Just for kicks, we can add the following much more scientific article, before returning to the first:

Photonic Frontiers: beam combining – Combining beams can boost total power

Note, that in the second article, it is admitted that combining several beams into one can be a method of dealing with the problem of the tremendous heat that lasers generate, and also that it is a method for increasing power, with this very important caveat:

Combination of larger arrays of laser elements to produce good quality beams has been demonstrated only at lower powers. Other challenges include balancing the tradeoffs between diode arrays and arrays of fiber lasers, reducing the light lost to side lobes, and efficiently combining light from input arrays with relatively low fill factors.

The big questions are how high can the power go, and how well will it scale?

Our friends at phys.org are a little more “flashy” in their coverage of the phenomenon:

The Star Wars ‘superlaser’ may no longer be sci-fi

Diamond makes laser beams more brilliant

Basically, the new technique involves shooting several laser beams at a very pure diamond, which due to its lattice properties combines the incoming beams into one outgoing beam, and at the same time changing its frequency. The result is an increase of power in the beam, without the increase of heat that would be generated by one beam to begin with.  Then comes this admission from the first phys.org article cited above:

Although other materials have exhibited the same type of beam combining properties, the choice of diamond is essential for high power. The power-transfer effect at the heart of the device, called Raman scattering, is particularly strong in diamond. Also, crucially, diamond is outstanding for its ability to rapidly dissipate waste heat.

At this point, my calm smile, brought on by confident knowledge that we were nowhere close to being able to build gigantic moons with laser beam-combining to blow up planets (much less actually be able to move the thing), began to acquire a slight twinge of nervousness, for the final statement indicated that “they” were testing the whole technique on a variety of materials, doubtless to find the most optimal for power output and heat dissipation.

Which brings us back to the first article that Mr. J.K. sent me, where, sure enough, my worst suspicions were confirmed:

Planetary destruction is not on the cards for this technology, but it has applications for both defense purposes and scientific analysis. Laser technology is crucial in many areas and this will allow lasers to go beyond the current power limits.

“Researchers are developing high power lasers to combat threats to security from the increased proliferation of low-cost drones and missile technology,” Professor Mildren explained. “High power lasers are also needed in space applications including powering space vehicles and tackling the growing space junk problem that threatens satellites.” (Emphasis added)

And of course, what can be used to zap “space junk” into vapor can be used to zap satellites, or missiles, into vapor… and one day, perhaps, on a sufficiently large orbital platform, to be used in more horrific offensive strategic “mission configurations” against ground targets…

Smile. Remember, we’re nowhere close. Remember, that when H.G. Wells started writing about atomic bombs in his science fiction at the turn of the last century, it took a whole 45 years to invent them. Have a nice day.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

National Academy of Sciences has been totally corrupted by GMO-pushing biotech corporations that wield astonishing financial influence over science

Image: National Academy of Sciences has been totally corrupted by GMO-pushing biotech corporations that wield astonishing financial influence over science
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
April 6, 2017

Who better to provide Congress with guidance on science-related policies than a panel of the nation’s so-called experts that have been corrupted by the industry? The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have recently come under fire, thanks to a biotechnology panel that was found to be littered with financial ties to Big Biotech.

While the Academies proclaim to pride themselves as being “advisers to the nation,” it seems that at least one of their committees prides itself more on being in the industry’s back pocket.

A recent report from the Academies’ panel for biotechnology claimed to have no conflict of interest, even though their very own web page on the panel members seems to tell a different story. Several committee members boast conflicts of interest, and at least two violate the Academies’ stringent conflict-of-interest policy, according to The New York Times.

To make matters worse, an employee of the Academies’ was also searching for new employment at the time he was selecting the 13 people he recommended for the biotech panel. Three of those 13 individuals turned out to be board members belonging to his new employer. If you haven’t guessed it already, the “new employer” is a biotechnology company — surprise, surprise.

The National Academies have defended these conflicts of interest, and maintain that because the type of expertise required of their staff is “limited,” a certain level of conflict “must be tolerated.” However, many people feel these “conflicts” undermine the integrity of the organization, as well as its authority. Indeed, it leaves us all questioning whether or not their so-called facts are even real.

In total, the Times identified seven panelists who had commercial interests that could be affected by regulations, or had been associated with the industry in some way. Because there were 13 panel members, it would seem that those without a conflict of interest were in the minority. Here are the seven panel members that are potentially corrupted by industry influence, and what their ties to the biotech industry are:

Steven P. Bradbury: A professor of environmental toxicology at Iowa State University, and the owner of Steven P. Bradbury & Associates, a consulting company that advises biotech firms.

Farren Issacs: Assistant professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale University, and the co-founder of enEvolv, a company that “re-engineers” microbes into chemicals for industrial purposes.

Richard M. Amasino: A professor of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin who holds patents on several biotech processes.

Jeffrey Wolt: Professor of agronomy and toxicology at Iowa State University, and a former Dow Chemical employee. The National Academies have disclosed that he has commercial interests that violate their policies. He is still on the panel, as the Academies have concluded that the level of conflict was “unavoidable.”

Steven L. Evans: Evans currently works for Dow AgroSciences as a fellow in seeds discovery research and development. This is a clear conflict of interest that the Academies have disclosed and dismissed once again as “unavoidable.”

Richard Johnson: A former senior partner at international law firm, Arnold & Porter, and the chief executive and founder of Global Helix — a consulting company that “may” advise clients in the biotech industry. Johnson has since resigned.

Richard Murray: A professor of bioengineering at California Institute of Technology, and the co-founder Synvitrobio, a biotech start-up.

To say that these conflicts may “color” the perception of these panel members is an understatement. These people have clear ties to the biotechnology industry, with many of them being an explicit part of the industry they have been deigned to help regulate via their advisory reports. How can anything they say really be trusted, when over half the panel has a potential conflict? (RELATED: Learn more about corruption in mainstream science at FakeScience.news)

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

GMWatch.org

NationalAcademies.org

NYTimes.com

6be36-iu
Source: ScientificAmerican.com
Adam Piore
March 24, 2017

Excerpted from The Body Builders: Inside the Science of the Engineered Human by Adam Piore. Copyright © 2017 Adam Piore. With permission of the publisher, HarperCollins. All rights reserved.

It’s a frigid February afternoon, and I’m sitting in a hospital room in downtown Albany, New York, as a team of white-jacketed technicians bustle about the bed of a 40-year-old single mother from Schenectady, named Cathy. And they are getting ready to push the outer bounds of computer-aided “mind reading.” They are attempting to decode “imagined speech.”

I have been led here by Gerwin Schalk, a gregarious, Austrian-born neuroscientist, who has promised to show me just how far he and other neurological codebreakers have travelled since that day decades ago when David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel made history by listening in—and decoding—the patterns of neurons firing in a cat’s visual cortex.

Cathy is epileptic and plans to undergo brain surgery to try to remove the portion of her brain that is the source of her seizures. Three days ago, doctors lifted off the top of Cathy’s skull, and placed 117 tiny electrodes directly onto the right surface of her naked cortex so they could monitor her brain activity and map the target area. While she waits, she has volunteered to participate in Schalk’s research.

Now, next to my chair, Cathy is propped up in a motorized bed. The top of Cathy’s head is swathed in a stiff, plaster-like, mold of bandages and surgical tape. And a thick jumble of mesh-covered wires protrudes from the opening at the top of her skull. It flops over the back of her hospital bed, drops down to the ground and snakes over to a cart holding $250,000 worth of boxes, amplifiers, splitters and computers.

An attendant gives a signal, and Cathy focuses on a monitor sitting on the table in front of her as a series of single words emanate in a female monotone from a pair of nearby speakers.

“Spoon…”

“Python…”

“Battlefield…”

After each word, a colored plus sign flashes on Cathy’s monitor–Cathy’s cue to repeat each word silently in her head. Cathy’s face is inscrutable. But as she imagines each word, the 117 electrodes sitting atop her cortex record the unique combination of electrical activity emanating from 100s of millions of individual neurons in an area of her brain called the temporal lobe. Those patterns shoot through the wires, into a box that amplifies them, and then into the computer, where they are represented in the peaks and valleys of stacked, horizontal lines scrolling across the screen in front of the technician. Buried somewhere in that mass of squiggly lines, so thick and impenetrable it resembles a handful of hair pulled taut with a brush, is a logical pattern, a code that can be read if one understands the mysterious language of the brain.

Later Schalk’s team at the Wadsworth Center, a public health laboratory of the New York State Department of Health, along with collaborators at UC Berkeley, will pore over the data. Each one of Cathy’s electrodes records the status of roughly 1 million neurons, roughly 10 times a second, creating a dizzying blizzard of numbers, and combinations and possible meanings.

Yet Schalk insists he and his team can solve the puzzle and, using modern computing power, extract from that mass of data the words that Cathy has imagined.

It’s an effort Schalk has been pursuing for more than last decade. As part of a project originally funded by the Army Research Office, Schalk and others found evidence that when we “imagine” speaking, the auditory cortex, perhaps as an error-correction reference, receives a copy of how every word we speak should sound. That holds true even when we simply imagine saying a word.

Since that discovery, Schalk and his collaborators have demonstrated they can sometimes tell the difference between imagined vowels and consonants about 45 percent of the time. Chance is 25 percent. Rather than attempt to push those numbers up towards 100 percent, Schalk has focused on showing he can differentiate between vowels and consonants embedded in words. Then individual phonemes. And that’s not all.

From Cathy’s bedside, I follow Schalk to his office. On a large screen, Schalk pulls up a mass of brain signals, squiggly lines and different kinds of charts. Then he flips on some speakers. Over the course of many months, Schalk explains, he carried speakers into hospital rooms and played the same segment of a Pink Floyd song for about a dozen brain surgery patients like Cathy. Then Schalk handed the file of their recorded brain activity over to the UC Berkeley lab of Robert Knight for processing, to see if they might decode it.

Schalk presses a button. A bass begins to thump urgently like the furious beating of a human heart from a nearby speaker. It’s slightly muffled, as though heard from underwater, but it’s clearly a bass. A plaintive guitar echoes through an effects pedal, its notes accelerating with each new phrase. I recognize the song immediately—it is the mesmerizing, and haunting tones from “another Brick in the Wall,” on Pink Floyd’s the Wall. Aside from the vague muffling, the song is identical to the song I used to listen to in High School. But this version comes from brainwaves, not music.

“Is it perfect?” Schalk asks. “No. But we not only know that he’s hearing music, you know the song. It used to be science fiction, but it’s not anymore.”

This feat is possible thanks to the discovery that different groups of neurons in the auditory cortex fire more robustly in response to specific tones, and amplitudes. Hit an individual neuron’s sweet spot in the auditory cortex by playing the right tone and it fires robustly. Move away from a neuron’s preferred tone, and the neuron’s firing rate will slow. By training pattern recognition algorithms, Schalk and his collaborators have taught computers to “translate” the neural firing patterns in the auditory cortex back into sound.

Schalk and his Berkeley collaborators are now attempting to discern whether patients are imagining reciting the Gettysburg Address, JFK’s Inaugural Address, or the nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty just by looking at brain data—and attempting to reproduce it artificially using the same techniques. Eventually they hope to use it to decode the imagined speech of volunteers like Cathy—and eventually patients who are fully locked in and have lost the ability to speak.

Read More At: ScientificAmerican.com

Explosive: A Quick Review Of Fake Medical Diagnostic Tests

questions
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 14, 2017

Over the years, during my investigations of deep medical fraud, I’ve uncovered diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.

ONE: Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. However, prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it. However, after 1985, public health agencies and doctors reversed field. They claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.

In fact, a vaccine purportedly produces antibodies and, therefore, is said to confer immunity—but the very same antibodies, generated naturally by the body, signal illness. This is absurd.

TWO: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. It takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified. But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease—except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.

THREE: MRI brain imaging. As I reported this morning, a significant bug in the software had been discovered in 2015. The software, not medical personnel, is responsible for creating the brain images. Therefore, 40,000 published papers relying on MRI results have been invalidated.

FOUR: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. There are no definitive tests. No blood, saliva, hair tests. No genetic assays. No brain scans. All so-called mental disorders are diagnosed on the basis of consulting menus of behaviors. This is pseudoscience.

FIVE: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. There are numerous studies that reveal vaccinated persons coming down with the disease against which they were supposedly protected.

Food for thought: “Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.)”

SIX: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all. For example, at the height of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, in the fall of 2009, the CDC secretly stopped counting cases in America. Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.

But don’t worry, be happy. Keep your mouth shut and obey all doctors’ orders.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Science, Secrecy, And Ufology

Secrecy
Source: RichardDolanpress.com
Richard Dolan
December 26, 2000

Secrecy permeates the UFO field. What does this mean for Ufology as a science? Answer: the field cannot really be handled scientifically within the public domain. The great model is the Manhattan Project. When a project is undertaken at highly classified levels, you will find nothing of value about it within the mainstream. This was true during the development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s; it is true regarding the UFO.

Missing the Obvious

Somethings are so obvious that they are invisible.

Segments of the intelligence community have been intensely interested in UFOs since the problem emerged after World War Two. Moreover, they have monitored and infiltrated the UFO field. Conversely, the “mainstream” (as opposed to “classified”) scientific community has ignored UFOs altogether. Ask yourself a simple question: why this discrepancy?

What passes for Ufology has spun its wheels for fifty years. Not only have even its most important researchers been unable to force recognition of the problem by official powers (not very surprising, after all), but some of these same researchers have not even taken a definite stand on what UFOs might represent. That is, they have been working without a hypothesis (!) and so in many cases have merely piled up sighting after sighting for years and years, and then expected this pile of “evidence” to do the trick. But in any intellectual endeavor, piling up evidence is never enough. The researcher has to organize and analyze the evidence through hypothesis or supposition. Without this effort, there is no research, only what Gore Vidal calls “scholarly squirreling” of data in a hole in a hollow tree. What can we say about such researchers, some of whom having been in the field for decades, or even in some cases, generations? What have they been doing?

A young innocent who wants to learn more about this topic – a subject of the utmost seriousness and importance – can easily become bewildered by the confusion. Should one side with Klass, Shaeffer, and Korff, or Hynek, Ruppelt, and Keyhoe, or Friedman, or Randall? Does one follow the line of the conservative J. Allen Hynek Center of UFO Studies (CUFOS), the paranormal leanings of MUFON, or the coverup themes of UFO Magazine? On the Internet, should one haunt the tepid world of listserves like Project 1947 or UFO Updates, or dive right into John Greenwald’s Black Vault?

Four centuries ago, Rene Descartes established a very simple principle of knowledge: one must create a strong skeleton – that is, a foundation of unquestionable facts – and build an edifice upon it.

So let us be Cartesian, and review the obvious.

Secrecy and the National Security Crowd

In 1946, a year before the great deluge of reports here in the states, Americans monitored “ghost rockets” over Europe. Two prominent American generals conferred with the Swedes, and censorship over the Swedish press followed. The Greek Army also investigated, according to Dr. Paul Santorini, a key scientist in the development of the atomic bomb. The Greeks concluded the objects were not Soviet, nor were they missiles. The American military then pressured them into silence.

In 1947, UFOs appeared over American skies in large numbers. Some incidents were quite serious, such as the repeated violation of air space over the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility. Oak Ridge housed some of the most sophisticated technology in the world and was highly classified: one did not simply fly over there. Yet Army Intelligence and the FBI monitored dozens of intrusions over Oak Ridge well into the 1950s. Similar violations occurred over sensitive places in Los Alamos, Hanford, and many military bases. All of this was classified, of course. Americans knew nothing about them at the time.

In a classified memo, General Nathan Twining wrote of the possibility – based on the careful evaluation of military personnel – that “some of the objects are controlled.” Controlled by whom was the $64,000 question, and America’s national security establishment set out to answer it, far removed from the prying eyes of the public.

In 1949, an FBI memo stated that: “Army intelligence has recently said that the matter of ‘unidentified aircraft’ or ‘unidentified aerial phenomena’ … is considered top secret by intelligence officers of both the Army and the Air Forces.”

In 1950, Robert Sarbacher, a physicist with the DOD Research & Development Board, privately told Canadian official Wilbert Smith that UFOs were “the most highly classified subject in the U.S. government.”

After an extraordinary UFO encounter near Fort Monmouth, New Jersey in 1951, Air Force officer Edward Ruppelt attended a two-hour meeting chaired by General Charles Cabell, the Director of Air Force Intelligence (and later Deputy CIA Director). The meeting was recorded, but the tape “was so hot that it was later destroyed. . . . to be conservative, it didn’t exactly follow the tone of the official Air Force releases.”

The CIA, meanwhile, had monitored the problem since at least 1948. After the UFO wave of 1952, the Agency sponsored the Robertson Panel, which convened in January 1953 – the final weekend of the Truman presidency. The panel debunked UFOs, and its recommendations resulted in the gutting of Project Blue Book (already a public relations burden) and heightened surveillance of civilian UFO organizations.

Clearly, this was an issue considered to be of the utmost seriousness. As a result, it was not a topic ordinary citizens could simply waltz into and get easy answers. Observe what happened to the most dangerous of all civilian organizations: the National Investigative Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). Founded in 1956 with the goal of ending UFO secrecy, it was quickly and secretly infiltrated by “ex-CIA” officers involved in CIA psychological warfare operations. The most important of them, Colonel Joseph Bryan, was the key player in the ouster of Director Donald Keyhoe in 1969. A succession of CIA men then ran NICAP into the ground. Needless to say, no one outside the Agency knew of their CIA connections.

One might complain this was all a long time ago. Does the military still take UFOs seriously? Does the intelligence community still infiltrate UFO organizations? After all, if UFOs are still important, then intelligence operatives would presumably still need to monitor and influence the key organizations. Is there any reason to believe this is so?

In a word, yes. The military still encounters UFOs, as many reports continue to prove. Moreover, secrecy orders about UFOs remain in effect. In 1975, the late Senator Barry Goldwater stated that UFOs were still classified “above Top Secret.” As one of my Navy acquaintances recently said to me: “If I were to tell you what I knew about that subject, I would probably go to prison.”

In the mid-1980s, UFO researcher William Moore admitted to working covertly with the intelligence world, to the shock and dismay of his colleagues. But stuff like this is surely the tip of a large iceberg. Ufology is dominated by men and women connected to the world of intelligence, usually through prior experience in the military or CIA. Why is this so? What does it mean to Ufology that this is the case? It is a question I will return to – more than once, I suspect – in future articles.

Science

Throughout history, people have used outdated concepts to think about the world, especially during periods of rapid change. It’s unavoidable. We remain wedded to the concepts we learned in our youth, while reality races ahead. Observe our cultural attitudes toward science. Science, we were taught, is a bastion, indeed the foundation, of intellectual freedom in the world. It is an independent search for truth, and the destroyer of social and religious myths.

How independent is science? In whose interest is it practiced today? This is no idle question, for gone are the days of scientists following their intellectual passions in a search for truth. Earlier this year, James Lovelock, a pioneer in environmental science now in his eighties, had this to say:

Nearly all scientists are employed by some large organization, such as a governmental department, a university, or a multinational company. Only rarely are they free to express their science as a personal view. They may think that they are free, but in reality they are, nearly all of them, employees; they have traded freedom of thought for good working conditions, a steady income, tenure, and a pension.

Science is an expensive business, and you need sponsorship. I laughed out loud when a sincere and interested reader of my book asked me who sponsored my research. But, he is a scientist, for whom such a thing is absolutely necessary.

Reflect on the following:

  1. Since the Second World War, the military has been by far the biggest sponsor of scientific work.
  2. The military and intelligence community has exhibited extreme levels of interest in the UFO phenomenon, and high levels of classification have enveloped the subject.
  3. It would seem logical that the military has sponsored classified – that is, secret – scientific work on this problem for many years.
  4. In public, however, mainstream scientists offer nothing more than ridicule or scorn upon the topic of UFOs

Like any other segment of our civilization, scientists follow the money. If the cash is there, so are they; if not, forget about it. If, as I believe, the vast sponsorship of UFO research is classified, we will not hear positive statements about the subject from the mainstream. Moreover, the extreme specialization of science ensures that mavericks do not stray into the uncharted seas of UFO research. The result is widespread ignorance by scientists of even the basics of the UFO phenomenon. At least, this is so within the non-classified, mainstream areas of research. In the classified world, we can only surmise, but we can do so based on some facts.

We know without question that within the first few years of the appearance of UFOs, many top-flight scientists became involved in some way with this phenomenon – in every case at the classified level. By no means exhaustive, here are some of the more noteworthies: Lloyd Berkner, Edward Teller, Detlev Bronk, Vannevar Bush, David Sarnoff, Thornton Page, H. P. Robertson, Allen Hynek, and Lincoln La Paz. In the case of Bush and Bronk, the connection has not been proven to the satisfaction of some skeptics, but even in their case, the evidence remains strong. For the rest, the case is open-and-shut. These men were some of the elite power scientists in the world, and intimately connected with the American defense establishment. And yet, we find them looking at UFO reports. Of course, let us not forget Harvard astronomer and UFO debunker extraordinaire, Donald Menzel, who, unbeknownst to the world, was deeply involved with the American intelligence community, in particular the super-secret National Security Agency.

One supposes that we shall have to wait another few decades to learn about our contemporaries – in other words, long after the issue becomes moot. Such secrecy, we realize, is not unique to UFOs. It is standard operating procedure. We learn the truth after it becomes irrelevant.

The Great Secrecy Model

As was stated above, when a project is undertaken at highly classified levels, you will find nothing of value about it within the mainstream. The primordial example is the Manhattan Project. Here was an undertaking of such magnitude that secrecy was of paramount importance. How to design and build an atomic bomb without the enemy knowing? It is, of course, a multifarious question. One of the answers, however, was to hide the knowledge from Congress itself – despite the fact that it involved unprecedented outlays of money. Amazingly, the plan succeeded.

In fact, when scientists detonated a nuclear bomb at Los Alamos on July 16, 1945, the most spectacular and ominous event in the history of science, no one outside that small classified circle knew a thing. Consider the implications. The work was done in a secrecy so profound that the mainstream scientific literature had nothing of import to say about nuclear technology. The information was too sensitive to discuss openly.

Significantly, though the Manhattan Project remained secret from the public, it was not secret from the Soviets, who had penetrated the American defense and scientific establishment, and used data from the project to build an atomic bomb years ahead of schedule. This pattern, in fact, recurred throughout the Cold War: more often than not, the American public was kept in the dark about black projects more successfully than were the Soviet authorities. Many times, it was they and not the Soviets who were the true target of secrecy – for instance, in such cases as the U-2 flyovers or mind control experiments.

Thus, the Manhattan Project possesses staggering historical importance for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it has served as a model ever since for conducting expensive and covert operations. Hiding the money, keeping the real talk classified, and steering the public discussion – all of these were successfully tackled by the national security world of the 1940s.

If it’s important, it’s probably secret. This was true during the development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s; it is almost certainly true regarding the UFO.

Implications

Those of us without a “need to know” about UFOs can still learn a few things. Enough information exists within the public realm that we can put many of the pieces together. It is, frankly, what I have tried to do in my recent study.

Do the math. For more than fifty years, millions of people have experienced a global phenomenon from agencies unknown, possessing what appears to be fantastic technology. We have on record hundreds of military UFO encounters and reports, with undoubted interest and infiltration by the intelligence world. Compound this with disturbingly strong claims of abduction (and even worse) on the part of these others, and you have powerful reasons for abject silence on the part of our erstwhile leaders.

The math is not higher calculus. No, it is simple addition, and when you add it up the conclusion is forced: this is a fundamentally covert event of awesome magnitude.

But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we can “get to the bottom” of this. That is, as mere citizens of what some would call an oligarchic empire that masquerades as a democracy, we are unlikely to get official confirmation regarding something as important as an alien presence. And even if we did get such “confirmation,” could we truly depend on the accuracy and completeness of the information? I think you know the answer.

Knowledge may give us an edge in some way. Or, our situation may more closely match the American natives of 500 years ago. Either way, we on the outside are on our own where this phenomenon is concerned, and it behooves us to become as educated about it as we can. Otherwise, we experience our fate – for good or ill – in the dark.

Read More At: RichardDolanPress.com