MUPLUS+   Join Plus+ and get exclusive shows and extensions! Subscribe Today! LEARN MORE  


Advertise here now!


UFO Disinformation: Whose Truthiness Can We Trust?

When Ben and Aaron recently interviewed abduction experiencer Dave Eckhart in MU Plus+ Episode 123, he told them that if the government knew an eighth of what he did about the alien agenda, there would never be disclosure.

If he could prove that frog-ape aliens carried him from his bed to off-world medical facilities where Reptilian doctors operated on him alongside many other men, women and children, it would be a real PR nightmare for the government.

Unfortunately, Dave lacks physical evidence to back up his story, and since everyone knows extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, his alien visitations will be dismissed as lies or delusions and anyone who doubts that conclusion will risk public ridicule.

If that sounds like an overstatement, just check out Jacques Valle’s recent crop circle posts on Boing Boing and see the spectacle skeptics made of themselves holding Occam’s Razor to the throat of a man with a graduate degree in astrophysics and a PhD. in information studies. Dozens of commentators–many of whom erroneously assuming the Valle credits UFOs with crop circle creation–demand to see his evidence. When he provides links to research, the skeptics reject the scholarship of his sources. They obviously don’t know what they’re talking about or to whom they are speaking, but even when the facts are repeatedly pointed out by Boing Boing’s moderator, they will not give up the fight.

Indeed, the “skeptics’” knee-jerk reactions are often more vehement and emotional than the views they are disparaging. So, what is it about UFOs and other paranormal phenomenon that so infuriates these self-proclaimed “rational thinkers?” They probably can’t answer that question themselves, but the truth is out there.

In 1952, the U.S. military received reports of 1,900 UFO sightings and people were becoming convinced that UFOs were real and the government should do something about them. Several studies , investigations and projects had been already undertaken by military and intelligence agencies to examine the problem. The results were inconclusive, often further complicating the situation by layering unanswerable questions atop the existing mystery.

However, the whole UFO thing was getting out of hand, and neither the military nor intelligence wanted to have their agencies held responsible for solving the riddle of the ages and failing. Out of this pension-threatening crisis, an answer emerged from the CIA.

Soon a handful of renown scientists, aka the Robertson Panel, were assembled to review the UFO evidence (or as much of it as they CIA thought prudent to reveal ) and four days later, the eggheads concurred with the intelligence agency’s recommendations. In their conclusions, documented in the classified “Report of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified flying Objects Convened by Office of Scientific Intelligence, CIA,  January 14-18, 1953,” some of the brightest men of 20th century science blithely sign off on a nationwide program of disinformation. Indeed, they provided blanket plausible deniable to the entire U.S. government on UFOs in particular and pretty much anything else they might want to wash their hands of at any future date.  And they did it with this brief statement:

“Attention should be directed to the requirement among scientists that a new phenomena, to be accepted, must be completely and convincingly documented. In other words, the burden of proof is on the sighter, not the explainer.”

Why would these smart guys agree to authorize this diabolical get-out-of-jail-free card for the CIA?

In the report’s conclusions, they agreed with the CIA’s findings that UFOs were cultivating “a morbid national psychology in which skillful hostile propaganda could induce hysterical behavior and harmful distrust of duty constituted authority.” It’s unclear how they arrived at this conclusion given that earlier in the report they noted “the general absence of Russian propaganda based on a subject with so many obvious possibilities for exploitation might indicate a possible Russian official policy.”

Nonetheless, the scientists were convinced that the hypothetical propaganda threat was so worrisome that it required that “the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired.”

Okay, so how do you put out those weird lights in the sky? With a weapon more powerful than any death ray from outer space: Through a “broad educational program integrating efforts of all concerned agencies that should have two major aims: training and….” (wait for it) ‘debunking.'”

The training part would “result in proper recognition of unusually illuminated objects,” which sought to make sure UFOs would henceforth be identified as much less troublesome balloons, meteors, etc. Mission easily accomplished.

But how to you educate people to embrace debunking ? It requires more subtly, and, of course, Walt Disney:

“The ‘debunking’ aim would result in reduction of public interest in ‘flying saucers’ which today evokes a strong psychological reaction. This education could be accomplished by mass media such as s television, motion pictures, and popular articles. The basis of such education would be actual case histories which had been puzzling at first but later explained. As in the case of conjuring tricks, there is much less stimulation if the ‘secret’ is known. Such a program should tend to reduce the current gullibility of the public and consequently their susceptibility to clever, hostile propaganda.”

The panel goes on to suggest that the education program solicit the input of an expert on mass psychology, another on advertising and mass communications. Television personality Arthur Godfrey was suggested as a channel for reaching a mass audience “of certain levels.” As well as Walt Disney, Inc. for creating animated cartoons.

I don’t know what role Mickey Mouse played in bringing this “education” plan to fruition, but it’s abundantly clear that the plan succeeded in spades; just look at what it did for the career of Amazing Randi built for himself by training legions to recite the debunkers’ motto: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Well, here’s an extraordinary claim: These self-anointed “skeptics” are unwitting government tools programmed by mass media to facilitate the takeover of planet Earth by alien invaders and to be extremely annoying while doing so. I’ve got the documents to prove my case right here; if you say my claim is inaccurate, the burden of proof in on you, baby. Let’s see your papers.

 TAGS: , ,

  • gloriagirl

    wow, lately i am reading and finding out really weird things going on around us…but it's all jumble up in my head..I read the bible, and other books that concor with the bible..THE BOOK OF ENOCH is one of them..the book of “the Gods of Eden” and so on..I'm trying to find out the truth. to many stories of abducted people, scared and don't know who to turn, and who to trust. spaceships all over the place.
    I know and blieve this..God is good, I believe that soon things are going to happen, and we are in the middle of it all..the good with the they are angels, aliens, I just don't know anymore..but I do know that I shall be in the good side..because God, or JEHOVA, or what other name you know him from. will reward all who stand by truth and justice. we do have alot of good people out there that will not let anyone change who they are, and what they belive in.

  • MoTown Missile

    Anyone checked his house for a gas leak? any Co 2 lines near the house?

  • Donttouchthatbutton

    Here's the thing, He (Jacques Valle) didn't link any research other then the node “explosion” paper, in the researcher (who be a believer) said it was possible that the node explosions were due to heat oh and a new scientist article that had nothing to do with microwave weaponry's effect to corn. Great research, there. Also nice throw in the conspiracy too that should work out.

  • Greendistantstar

    Sure, what proof do you have? If it’s just documents saying that other people think that aliens are alive and kicking here on earth, that’s not proof. No aliens on earth, not a single one, nor is there a jot of proof. Put up or shut up, simple.

  • Greendistantstar

    Sure, what proof do you have? If it’s just documents saying that other people think that aliens are alive and kicking here on earth, that’s not proof. No aliens on earth, not a single one, nor is there a jot of proof. Put up or shut up, simple.

  • James Wright

    the latest t.v. shows are nothing but misinformation they are covering up the fact that our military has craft that has electromagnetic propulsion. the germans had it in ww2 pilots dubbed it as foo fighters. when they find blobs of melted aluminum that is a byproduct EM motors anyone can read between the lines of misinformation

  • J.Griffin

    The funny thing is that skeptics NOW are essentially in contradistinction
    to what the original skeptics were in the days of Plato&Pyrrho.

    They did not believe that there WERE any scientific absolutes-
    not any that man would ever agree on,
    at any rate.

    Please pardon my oversimplification-
    do the research and learn something substantial.

    Modern skeptics BELIEVE in all manner of “scientific” absolutes-
    many of which HAVE changed,been corrected
    or are under serious question of veracity in light of new discoveries.

    “Scientism” is another story…
    I will say that it is absolutely amazing to me
    how many “scientists” are so completely unaware of their own belief system!

    I didn’t pick the words….

    look them up and see the connection-
    “scientist” stems directly from “scientism”
    like “existentialist” stems directly from “existentialism”.

    in the strong sense,
    is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence-
    if true,not meaningful.

    scientism is either false or meaningless.

    This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in hisTractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as “The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science…”


    ….and that was from The Skeptic’s Dicionary!

    “Unbelief” is,
    if anything,
    more flawed and biased than “belief”…