From: Dick Hall <dh12.nul>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:39:45 -0500
Archived: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:51:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Discreditation Of Ufology


>From: Franklin Fields <fields.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:02:08 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: Re: Discreditation Of Ufology

>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:37:45 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Discreditation Of Ufology

>>>From: Franklin Fields <fields.nul>
>>>To: post.nul
>>>Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:07:32 -0500 (EST)
>>>Subject: Re: Discreditation Of Ufology

>>Hi Frank,

>><snip>

>>>I could not agree more Joe. Again, I said it would be naive to
>>>dismiss the possibility of disinformation. I am not limiting it
>>>to skeptics. I pointed out that the CIA and others have used
>>>disinformation extensively in the past.

>><snip>

>>I have to confess that I am blissfully ignorant about the
>>situation in the USA. I know that historically, the US
>>intelligence agencies did take an active interest in ufology.

><snip>

>>In spite of what I wrote above, my own opinion is that the
>>authorities only exercise a passive interest in ufology today,
>>but were they to take an active interest, they would use the
>>channels mentioned above.

>Joe,

>PSY-OPS are normally used outside of normal authorities.

>Pardon my brief definition to insure we are on the same sheet.
>Disinformation, propaganda, and other similar strategies are
>termed PSY-OPS by the military.

>PSY-OPS use deception and other means to influence an audience's
>values, belief systems, emotions, reasoning, and behavior. I
>will use the term PSY-OP here but these strategies have many
>names.

>PSY-OPS have been used and are currently being used by
>government agencies such as the U.S. CIA and modern military
>commands. I think most would agree that there is ample evidence
>to support that conclusion.

>I agree the evidence of PSY-OP usage in the UFO subject area is
>limited but there are known instances. It is the nature of PSY-
>OPs that most will never be known. If the intended targets learn
>of the activity it would not be effective.

>PSY-OPS are a reality and their use is not limited to
>governments. Actually, the government, which also includes the
>military, contracts with companies (military industrial complex)
>that provide services to supplement their organizational
>capability. The companies could and do provide corporations and
>private individuals with similar services.

>For example, a large oil company like Exxon or BP might use the
>services of a PSY-OP company to influence public opinion in
>Mongolia, to give their company better access to drilling areas.

>I am not specifically saying the CIA or the U.S. government is
>using PSY-OPS on Ufology per se. It is likely, in my opinion,
>that it is being applied in some way. I say this because there
>is some strong evidence uncovered by investigators. Terry Hansen
>and Timothy Good's work come to mind. The PSY-OPS are not
>necessarily be perpetrated by governments. For the ETH believers
>it could be an outside ET intelligence applying similar tactics.

>But assuming only human interference, it is only natural that it
>would be applied to the UFO subject area if in fact someone or
>some agency was trying to keep UFOs a secret. It would also be
>used if someone was trying to make the public believe in UFOs
>(think false flag).

>My main point is that PSY-OPS are real. It is easily discovered
>in main stream history and contemporary literature. As a U.S.
>Military Officer I was trained on aspects of its use. Go to the
>U.S. Army recruiting web site and see that they are looking for
>a few good men to keep up the effort. See site:

>http://www.bragg.army.mil/psyop/psyopintro.htm

>I have said this on the List before but I will say it again,
>serious UFO researchers should consider the possibilities.
>Considering PSY-OP usage is not akin to being a conspiracy
>theorist. It should be part of the job description for a serious
>investigator.

Well stated, Frank. And I think this is just the other side of
the coin to the valid point Joe and Jerry Clark have made about
the tendency in Ufology toward conspiratorial thinking and
worse. I guess - in the words of the old Billy Martin
commercial - "I feel very strongly both ways."

It used to be called "psychological warfare" and one of the
NICAP Board members, Joseph Bryan III, turned out to be a
practitioner of it as documented by the late Todd Zechel.

In the old CSI of Los Angeles files, which were acquired by
NICAP, I found evidence of planted stories designed (during the
height of the Cold War, of course) to give the impression that
UFOs were secret U.S. military devices.

The Soviet Union suspected, for a while at least, that the whole
flying saucer phenomenon was only a U.S. propaganda ploy to
frighten them. And this may have been partly true at one point,
with the U.S. exploiting UFO reports for that purpose.

Also there is clear evidence of faked documents and planted
stories relating to crashed saucers, but here it gets murky as
to who is involved and why. Game players and jokesters could
account for some of it, as could certain individuals who are
trying to make a name for themselves and are not beyond engaging
in fraud to do so.

But in some instances PSY-OP cannot be ruled out and must be
considered as one hypothesis. The main thing is that the
hypothesis should be carefully and judicially applied - not
automatically or reflexively assumed.


Dick



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/subscribers/

Your access info works there too...

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.