UFO News

In Response to “60 Years of Disclosure Mythology”

This is in Response to “60 Years of Disclosure Mythology” by Thomas Scolarici posted Wednesday, August 7, 2013


Following the lead in this article from Mr. Scolarici that everything about UFOs is purely imaginary, I would like to help further his argument by starting off with statements of the leading UFO Con Men. They have perpetuated the Myth of UFOs, Secrecy and Cover-Up.

For starters, I present two of the leading UFO Con Men: General Nathan Twining, Head of the Air Force Air Materiel Command, who stated in a secret memorandum about UFOs in 1947, “The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.” This quote is not out of context either; it is from a since declassified  secret letter that describes that provides general descriptions of the craft being contacted by pilots as apparently metallic and capable of speed and performance flight unmatched by our best military technology.

This UFO hoaxer went on to become a 4-star Chief of Staff for the USAF.

William Blanchard was another UFO hoaxer, probably one of the worst since his July 1947 press release from Roswell that Roswell Army Air Field had captured a “flying disc” triggered the creation of the Roswell Myth. After issuing this obviously fake press release and generating a firestorm of world media attention, his career should have been over. Instead, he died from a heart attack at his desk in the Pentagon in 1966, a 4-star general and Vice Chief of Staff of the USAF. Interesting that creating the Roswell Myth didn’t seem to adversely affect his career.

But it is not truly my intent to be facetious. I am instead illustrating that the case for “rational Ufology” is really a case of the Emperor having no clothes. Are there quacks, charlatans, and zealots in the field of Ufology? Of course, but there are also highly educated, highly skilled professionals who have devoted many years of their lives to this mystery that just won’t go away. There are also people who have paid bitterly for telling the truth and refusing to follow the government-media party line on UFOs.

This particular article, 60 Years of Disclosure Mythology is misleading on so many levels I couldn’t just let it pass.

I recall reading at length over the years about UFO sightings and various types of encounters. The idea that Disclosure (With a Capital “D”) would one day occur is a relatively recent idea. Personally, I don’t think the government is any more likely to tell the truth about the reality of contact with Non-Human Intelligence, than it is likely to admit the extent to which every democratic institution has been corrupted by money and corporate influence.

UFO events represent not only mysterious phenomena worthy of serious study by themselves, but our response as a society to these encounters speaks volumes about how we face a universe that reveals itself to be ever more mysterious, vast and complex. There are many who can’t face the unknown impact of Contact with Non-Human Intelligences. There are also vested interests that will do anything to keep the average individual from thinking differently about how we divide each other by nations, religions, races, and all the other ways we justify our barbarism.

The focus of UFO research has always been trying to understand those UFO cases that are not best explained as natural or man-made phenomena. The idea of Disclosure evolved from the idea, we need to know what has been seen by sober, sane and serious witnesses, both professional and common in our skies. Our Need to Know has been the real cornerstone of Ufology. The movement for Disclosure is the political result of our realization that UFO history is too broad and too deep, and too important to deny. I support the Disclosure movement because I want to be an annoyance to those who may well be your employers. They certainly benefit from your “UFOs are myths” perspective.

UFO history is the elephant in the room our society chooses to ignore. This is the history that your article“60 Years of Disclosure Mythology” wants us to ignore. This article is like a bad magic act by a madman who throws a small bed sheet over a live elephant and then tells us, “See, I made the elephant disappear.” Nothing to see here; move along.

In reference to Donald Keyhoe predicting Congressional Hearings on UFOs, they did, in fact occur: There were Congressional Hearings in front of the House Armed Services Committee in 1966, and they were reconvened in front of the House Science and Aeronautics Committee in 1968. The problem is that nothing came of these hearings because the intelligence community wanted the effort to fail.

The latter event took place during the final stages of the Condon Committee “investigation” of UFOs. It is accepted history that Edward Condon was a shill. There was no possibility that he would express any opinion other than that of his masters. He admitted that he had made up his mind before the Committee ever met.

Condon was a hired gun in an alleged investigation that was about as likely to be objective as the Inquisition would be expected to practice religious tolerance. Condon would be your buddy; he draws conclusions by reveling in his prejudices. Your ideas are like a light post to a drunk; you need the support more than the illumination.

By the way let us not forget the Robertson panel from 1952. Even their existence was originally secret. Two of their key recommendations were that civilian UFO groups should be “monitored” and that everything should be done to dissuade the public from any interest in UFOs. How is this not evidence of secrecy and a cover-up?

Referring to your quote from Keyhoe, I would bet he is quoted out of context. Let us not forget that the National Enquirer as we know it today was founded by Generoso Pope Jr. whose resume included working for the CIA Psychological Warfare Unit. Did you get the quote from the Enquirer through research, or was it an inter-office memo?

And by the way, Dr. Hynek started as a USAF shill hired to place a scientific facade on official debunking efforts (Project Grudge, etc.) He was a real scientist and he thought it was wrong to pre-suppose the outcome of your research. In the end he realized the evidence was just too compelling. He is the last person a Black Budget Agency shill should invoke.

No one has proven that ALL of the MJ-12 documents were faked. Faulty logic based upon over-generalization once again. What you don’t like about the MJ-12 documents is what would happen if ONE of those documents was ever proven true. And that, of course, has been Stanton Friedman’s argument all along, which is why you have to trash him as well.

Aside from the fact that entire Roswell event does not rest upon the account by Glenn Dennis, even this attack involves misrepresentation of the facts. I spent time with Glenn Dennis in 2000 and he told me he was sorry that he made up a name after he was hounded. He is an elderly man in a nursing home who can’t defend himself, but then again, I am sure you know that, so I will.

The only part of Glenn Dennis’ story that is known to be a lie is the fact that he gave early UFO researchers a fake name for his friend, the Nurse, whose identity he had sworn never to divulge. Interesting, a good man keeps a promise to a friend and this makes everything he told us a fraud. But your argument really rests on whitewash; if the audience starts looking at the details, any of the details, it’s game over.

I would love to have you debate Don Schmitt or Tom Carey on Roswell. You wouldn’t last one minute. We see Roswell as an investigation of many years involving hundreds of witnesses, many of whom only know a small part of the story. But then, I think you and your masters probably know the truth about Roswell better than we do.

Referring to your criticism of Phillip Corso, this is one of the only statements you made where we are in agreement. I don’t trust Corso’s assertions either. Where we are in complete opposition is your unstated argument that “The Day After Roswell” is representative of the best UFO research. It is neither the best nor is it a primary work in the field.

Your implicit argument is that “The Day After Roswell” was the only major UFO book ever written. This will be a terrible shock to Richard Dolan and Leslie Kean, and quite a few other serious, dedicated researchers. I will bet that you probably claim that there was something intellectually honest about AREA 51 by Annie Jacobsen.

When it comes to the extensive contact with UFOs at US nuclear weapons storehouse in Britain, known as Rendlehsam Woods.  Again, there is the same faulty logic: If one witness has made questionable claims, the entire testimony of all the witnesses must be null and void. The Rendlesham Forest UFO Encounters are highly researched and documented. This is Britain’s Roswell, only better because they key witnesses are still available.

And Phillip Klass; don’t get me started on Special Agent Klass. I had direct personal experience with Phillip Klass’ willingness to lie without a moment’s hesitation. He blatantly lied to me when I was working security at the 1995 MUFON Symposium and I ejected him for taping the proceedings without permission after it was plainly posted.

And the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) – Anyone who has spent more than 2 minutes inquiring about NIDS knows it is owned and operated by Robert Bigelow, a billionaire enigma in his own right, whose true allegiances are most probably with the Black Budget world. See John Alexander’s history for details. NIDS was never a “UFO proponent organization.” There are numerous UFO researchers inside and outside of MUFON that have zero trust for Bigelow’s pet project, NIDS.

As to the final conclusion of this article that there will be no disclosure because there was no cover-up. Are you for real? I have an “embarrassment of riches” when it comes to evidence to refute your claim. There are so many names involved. More importantly, there are so many real people who have assessed the UFO question and others who have suffered because of the secrecy that you claim doesn’t exist. They could be sworn as witnesses in any court. Many of them would qualify as expert witnesses in their fields.

I will tell you the real myth. Perhaps in the beginning there was some arguable military justification for secrecy and cover-up about UFOs, but that time is long past. The myth is that we, the people, should not be told what happened at Roswell, Rendlesham Woods, and too many other places to list. The myth is that somehow this is being done for our good because the Black Budget funded Secret-Keepers know best.

Admittedly, there are hoaxers and con men in the field of Ufology. I always find it interesting that the existence of fraud in the UFO field is cause to debunk the entire history of UFOs. I don’t recall anyone getting on TV and stating that God doesn’t exist because there are religious crazies and soul-saving swindlers.

But there are two kinds of fraud being perpetrated on those of us who seriously consider the Mystery of UFOs: The first group is obvious – those who create stories to profit from lectures and book sales. I submit the second group is harder to spot and like a camouflaged viper, much more dangerous – these are the debunkers and professional skeptics who claim they are promoting scientific integrity when they secretly serve other masters with much darker agendas.

The most appropriate response to your doctrine of “rational Ufology” is the adage from Ben Franklin – Half the truth is often a great lie.

And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt. It does appear that your writing is yet another very strange thing my tax dollars have helped to purchase.

Here is one more UFO hoaxster for your collection of military professionals, pilots, law enforcement officers, and many other people from all walks of life who have been touched by the UFO Mystery in one way or another.

“Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe that unknown flying objects are nonsense.”

Roscoe Hillenkoetter
Former CIA Director in a public statement, 1960.

James E. Clarkson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *