The Christian Science Monitor, March 3, 2005
Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
The Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Paul Martin in Canada told the Bush administration last week that it will not endorse the US plan for national missile defense.
Many are viewing this as a slap in the face from Ottawa to Washington, and a change in the position Canada seemed to be taking a year ago. They expect it to poison relations between the two neighbors - ensuring, among other things, that next month's three-way summit with Mexican President Vicente Fox will fail to make progress in broadening NAFTA. It would seem that the knee-jerk liberal Canadians just could not get over their nostalgia for the ABM Treaty, as well as their visceral dislike of missile-defense systems.
This interpretation is badly mistaken. The Bush administration made major diplomatic errors in handling this topic with Canada. It asked for blanket endorsement of an open-ended US missile defense program, rather than for specific help with specific technical challenges and defensive weapons. This was a fundamental mistake, and the US has mostly itself to blame for the resulting fallout.
The problem really began in late fall. Shortly after gaining reelection on the strength of a campaign in which he spoke plainly and forthrightly to the American people about national security, President Bush took the same attitude up north. Although he'd promised beforehand not to bring it up, during a state visit to Ottawa Mr. Bush nonetheless asked Prime Minister Martin to support US missile defense efforts.
On its face, the request probably struck Bush as eminently reasonable. After all, any system the US developed would protect Canada too, making it natural that Ottawa would offer at least minimal support and political blessing.
During the cold war, Canada cooperated with the US on air defense, making missile defense seem a natural successor. And Canada had recently agreed to cooperate with the US at the NORAD air defense command in Colorado, tracking not only traditional threats from aircraft but possible missile launches against North America as well.
But Canadians, who have followed the American missile defense debate closely since Ronald Reagan's "star wars" Strategic Defense Initiative, did not hear Bush's request in such innocuous terms. They know what is in the Pentagon's long-term plan for missile defense systems. It isn't simply a pragmatic and modest defense against possible North Korean or Iranian threats, of the type now being deployed in California and Alaska. Although not yet formalized, it also envisions the possibility of a land-based and sea-based system that might be large enough to challenge China's deterrent (and even make some Russians nervous). And perhaps most controversial of all, it speaks of space weapons—be they small interceptor missiles or lasers to shoot down threats from wherever they might be launched.
These concepts remain red-flag topics in the great white north. Canadians are not wasting their time wallowing over the demise of cold war arms control; they are worried that the Rumsfeld Pentagon's missile defense efforts might damage future great power relations and might also result in the near-term weaponization of space—a prospect that most countries, including Canada, find highly objectionable.
gave a talk on missile defense in Toronto last month, and was stunned by two things: the large turnout, which said much more about the degree of Canadian anxiety over the subject than my draw as a speaker, and the degree of confusion in Canada over just what the US president could have been requesting when he visited last fall.
In the two months since the Bush visit, American diplomats still had not clarified the subject for their good allies to the north—and now the US ambassador has had the audacity to publicly criticize the Canadian prime minister for his recent decision.
What Bush administration officials need to remember is that they almost surely could not get blanket endorsement for all of the above missile defense systems even in the US. Congress has provided funding just for deployment of a limited land-based system and for research and development of other possible concepts. It has not bought into a grandiose architecture of the type that many Pentagon planners still envision. Nor is Bush unwise enough to request such an open-ended endorsement from Congress.
Indeed, his budget request for 2006 cuts missile defense, in recognition of the facts that the relevant technologies are proving slow to develop and that other, nonmissile threats seem more pressing. Yet it was at this moment the president asked Canada for something he probably could not get from the Republican-controlled legislature in his own country.
If Bush had wanted help with a specific missile defense test, further cooperation at NORAD, the right for a US ship hosting a missile defense radar to call at Canadian ports, or something else specific and finite, he probably could have gotten it. But instead, he asked for the moon, and was surprised when the answer was "no."
It is time to walk this subject back. For now, Canada doesn't want to support the US further on missile defense. That's fine, because there's nothing more the US needs to ask Ottawa to do at the moment. Let the issue cool, proceed with other business such as trade, cooperation against terrorist threats, and NATO operations in Afghanistan (where Canada has contributed enormously)—and revisit this subject when there is something finite and reasonable to request.
© Copyright 2005 The Christian Science Monitor
Note: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and should not be attributed to the staff, officers or trustees of The Brookings Institution
Our next challenge: a human on Mars (ESA)
European Space Policy,
21 February 2005.
“The European Space Agency will be the first space agency to reach all planets in the inner solar system.” That was the assurance of Piero Messina, speaking for ESA’s Aurora Exploration Programme at the last Earth & Space Expo lunchtime seminar in Brussels.
But is the exploration of space a race? Is NASA negligible? Messina was not denying the leadership of the USA, but he pointed out that today’s NASA has only been interested in sending humans to new frontiers in space since President Bush declared it his personal goal just one year ago. “ESA has had humans in space on its mind for much longer than that,” he said. “Europe is second to none.”
Europe in space
The European Space Agency has had many technological successes in its exploration of space. The names of the satellites and spacecraft that have left Earth’s orbit with the ESA logo on their sides are well-known: Rosetta, Cassini-Huygens, and the Mars Express. The next mission to Mars will be searching not just for rock and dust samples, but for signs of life.
The Aurora Programme planned to land humans on Mars by 2033, but Earth-bound politics since 2003 have already altered that timescale. The space station that has only just begun to be assembled should have been completed by now, so human footprints in the dust of Mars are further away than ever.
But Messina was adamant that the programme would continue to completion, with Mars as the primary, but not only, goal. The schedule for the next twenty years includes trial return flights, automated missions and a supplies dump. Robots and humans will work together to make progress possible.
Why spend all that money?
The Aurora programme is driven by high ideals and worldly desires. No one could argue with expanding human knowledge, the achievement of an identity for Europe that would transcend national boundaries, or inspiration to ignite the imagination, as was seen by rocketing interest in science and space training after the 1960s Apollo landings. The more pragmatic considerations behind sending the ExoMars rover into the red dust focus on boosting competitiveness by giving industry innovative advantages, and finding ways to increase global security through international co-operation.
What are we looking for?
But what the Aurora scientists also want is evidence of life. ExoMars will be equipped with sensors to look for signs of life that may have existed and may still exist on Mars. Traces of methane, which is produced by life forms and dissipates fast, will do nicely to start with. And if the surface seems barren, ExoMars will be equipped with a 2-metre-long drill to delve below the planet’s crust. ExoMars will have its own laboratory, so scientists on Earth can run tests remotely on the samples without fear of contamination. We don’t want to introduce Earth-originated microbes to alien samples or to the planet itself.
Who will be going?
When all the automated tests have been run, and the training is complete, humans will be sent to Mars. The journey will take six months, compared to the three-day journey to the Moon, so pre-flight selection will be critical. Conflict resolution may be one of the principal skills required in astronauts willing to spend 26 weeks in the most cramped and isolated conditions ever experienced by humans. The women and/or men on the spacecraft will be psychologically and physically fit, able to endure a testing voyage in a hostile environment. They will need to grow their own food and drink recycled water, and be their own space maintenance crew as well as scientists and pilots.
What are we doing now?
A base in the Arctic is testing tissue and psychological responses to extreme conditions. The study and development of life support systems is well advanced, and the water recycling technology developed by ESA for this purpose is now being used in the new Airbus passenger liner. Microgravity conditions are showing differences in the physiological responses between male and female astronauts.
Importantly, as none of this could happen without information sharing and co-operation, ESA and other space agencies around the world are talking to each other. Contributing scientific knowledge and technological expertise to the world space effort and keeping Europe at the forefront of the global space race.
21 February 2005.
“The European Space Agency will be the first space agency to reach all planets in the inner solar system.” That was the assurance of Piero Messina, speaking for ESA’s Aurora Exploration Programme at the last Earth & Space Expo lunchtime seminar in Brussels.
But is the exploration of space a race? Is NASA negligible? Messina was not denying the leadership of the USA, but he pointed out that today’s NASA has only been interested in sending humans to new frontiers in space since President Bush declared it his personal goal just one year ago. “ESA has had humans in space on its mind for much longer than that,” he said. “Europe is second to none.”
Europe in space
The European Space Agency has had many technological successes in its exploration of space. The names of the satellites and spacecraft that have left Earth’s orbit with the ESA logo on their sides are well-known: Rosetta, Cassini-Huygens, and the Mars Express. The next mission to Mars will be searching not just for rock and dust samples, but for signs of life.
The Aurora Programme planned to land humans on Mars by 2033, but Earth-bound politics since 2003 have already altered that timescale. The space station that has only just begun to be assembled should have been completed by now, so human footprints in the dust of Mars are further away than ever.
But Messina was adamant that the programme would continue to completion, with Mars as the primary, but not only, goal. The schedule for the next twenty years includes trial return flights, automated missions and a supplies dump. Robots and humans will work together to make progress possible.
Why spend all that money?
The Aurora programme is driven by high ideals and worldly desires. No one could argue with expanding human knowledge, the achievement of an identity for Europe that would transcend national boundaries, or inspiration to ignite the imagination, as was seen by rocketing interest in science and space training after the 1960s Apollo landings. The more pragmatic considerations behind sending the ExoMars rover into the red dust focus on boosting competitiveness by giving industry innovative advantages, and finding ways to increase global security through international co-operation.
What are we looking for?
But what the Aurora scientists also want is evidence of life. ExoMars will be equipped with sensors to look for signs of life that may have existed and may still exist on Mars. Traces of methane, which is produced by life forms and dissipates fast, will do nicely to start with. And if the surface seems barren, ExoMars will be equipped with a 2-metre-long drill to delve below the planet’s crust. ExoMars will have its own laboratory, so scientists on Earth can run tests remotely on the samples without fear of contamination. We don’t want to introduce Earth-originated microbes to alien samples or to the planet itself.
Who will be going?
When all the automated tests have been run, and the training is complete, humans will be sent to Mars. The journey will take six months, compared to the three-day journey to the Moon, so pre-flight selection will be critical. Conflict resolution may be one of the principal skills required in astronauts willing to spend 26 weeks in the most cramped and isolated conditions ever experienced by humans. The women and/or men on the spacecraft will be psychologically and physically fit, able to endure a testing voyage in a hostile environment. They will need to grow their own food and drink recycled water, and be their own space maintenance crew as well as scientists and pilots.
What are we doing now?
A base in the Arctic is testing tissue and psychological responses to extreme conditions. The study and development of life support systems is well advanced, and the water recycling technology developed by ESA for this purpose is now being used in the new Airbus passenger liner. Microgravity conditions are showing differences in the physiological responses between male and female astronauts.
Importantly, as none of this could happen without information sharing and co-operation, ESA and other space agencies around the world are talking to each other. Contributing scientific knowledge and technological expertise to the world space effort and keeping Europe at the forefront of the global space race.
The hidden history of the United Nations
May 19, 2005
The history told about the defeat of Nazism and the founding of the
United Nations in the 1940s has become distorted. A false view of the
past is being used today to shape how we think about our future. The
military power of the victorious wartime allies is offered as a model
for running the world, while the UN's supposed utopianism is seen as
ineffective and irrelevant.
This is a travesty of the facts (see the boxed timeline). We are
taught that the UN began with the signing of the Charter in 1945. In
fact, that agreement was the culmination of a complex military and
political effort that began in 1941. Understanding the UN's wartime
origins provides a powerful and much-needed reminder that the UN is
not some liberal accessory but was created out of hard, realistic
political necessity.
The historical records show how Winston Churchill and Franklin D
Roosevelt created the United Nations to win the war both militarily
and politically, and to create the foundations for a lasting peace.
...rediscovering the role of the United Nations in war and peace is
doubly crucial. It can reinforce the importance of the modern United
Nations and strip away the spurious moral authority the present Anglo-
American alliance tries to claim from the wartime experience.
- Dan Plesch, Open Democracy, May 18th
fyi-janet eaton
===========================================
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-28-2519.jsp#
The hidden history of the United Nations
Dan Plesch
18 - 5 - 2005
Dan Plesch rediscovers a forgotten story of the 1940s: how the United
Nations was forged, beat the Nazis and established a lasting peace.
The history told about the defeat of Nazism and the founding of the
United Nations in the 1940s has become distorted. A false view of the
past is being used today to shape how we think about our future. The
military power of the victorious wartime allies is offered as a model
for running the world, while the UN's supposed utopianism is seen as
ineffective and irrelevant.
This is a travesty of the facts (see the boxed timeline). We are
taught that the UN began with the signing of the Charter in 1945. In
fact, that agreement was the culmination of a complex military and
political effort that began in 1941. Understanding the UN's wartime
origins provides a powerful and much-needed reminder that the UN is
not some liberal accessory but was created out of hard, realistic
political necessity.
The historical records show how Winston Churchill and Franklin D
Roosevelt created the United Nations to win the war both militarily
and politically, and to create the foundations for a lasting peace.
Their first expression of Anglo-American policy was in the Atlantic
Charter of 1941; this included freedom from want, social security,
labour rights and disarmament as well as self-determination, free
trade and freedom of religion. Churchill himself remarked during the
height of the fighting in 1944 that the "United Nations is the only
hope of the world".
In the documentary records of the war years, countless references
demonstrate the UN's origin as a strategic engine of victory in the
second world war. The document that formalised the Nazi defeat in the
war includes the words: "This Act of Military Surrender is without
prejudice to, and will be superseded by, any general instrument of
surrender imposed by, or on behalf of, the United Nations on
Germany." President Truman broadcast on 8 May that: "General
Eisenhower informs me that the forces of Germany have surrendered to
the United Nations".
These references may seem odd today. But at the time, it was normal
to talk about the United Nations fighting the war. Major George B
Woods, chaplain to a "band of brothers" in the 82nd Airborne
Division, gave an address for the burial of the dead at Wobbelin
concentration camp. He explained that "these crimes were never
clearly brought to light until the armies of the United Nations
overran Germany".
A real coalition
The "United Nations" had been the official name for the coalition
fighting the axis powers since January 1942, when Roosevelt and
Churchill had led twenty-six nations, including the Soviet Union and
China, in a "Declaration by United Nations".
The declaration committed the twenty-six not to cut separate peace
deals with the Nazis and to subscribe to the principles of the
Atlantic Charter for the post-war world. The Charter provided the
political basis for countering Nazi ideology; it caught the
imagination of people around the world, including the young Nelson
Mandela and other anti-colonial activists.
The United Nations was a real entity, not a spin-doctored slogan
offering a gullible public the promise of world peace at the end of
the war. The allies fought the war as the United Nations and created
organisations in its name and on its foundation. The British Library
holds scores of wartime publications by or about the United Nations.
It was celebrated in music, prayer and exhibitions. Anthologies were
published of the exploits of "Heroes of the United Nations".
In Europe, General Eisenhower accepted the surrender of Fascist Italy
in September 1943, declaring: "Hostilities between the armed forces
of the United Nations and those of Italy terminate at once. All
Italians who now act to help eject the German aggressor from Italian
soil will have the assistance and the support of the United Nations."
He was soon sent to Britain to begin planning for D-Day. His orders
told him to do so in "conjunction with the other United Nations".
Eisenhower's broadcast to the troops aboard their landing craft
reminded them that "the United Nations have inflicted upon the
Germans great defeats, in open battle, man to man". Even the unit
shoulder-patch of his Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force
included a light blue band representing the peace offered to the
enslaved peoples of Europe by the United Nations.
United Nations political bodies were also created during the war.
Their work can still be found in the records of the wartime
organisations and the earliest archives of the post-war UN. In 1942,
United Nations information boards with offices and organisations were
established in New York and London, producing documents on Nazi
atrocities and publicity about the Allied war effort and plans for
the peace. The New York office's mail was franked with the slogan
"United Nations: in War and Peace."
In 1943, the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the United
Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration were created. By
1944, planning for the post-war had gathered momentum and United
Nations conferences were organised at Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton
Woods to tackle the financial and political issues.
A Times headline reported that the economist John Maynard Keynes was
flying to America to create a "United Nations Bank". This is just one
example of thousands of wartime references to the United Nations in
the pages of the Times that are now available through its digital
archive.
In 1945, the United Nations Conference on International Organisation
opened in San Francisco, which the United States postal service
marked with a stamp and special commemorative envelopes.
A lost history
Today, the United Nations is all too often regarded as an unnecessary
bauble attached to the allied victory. At the time, the UN
organisation created in San Francisco was regarded as the grand
culmination of the war effort.
George W Bush and Tony Blair seek to persuade their citizens that
other nations are just too intransigent to deal with in their
campaign to make the world free and safe. They would have us believe
that Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac are tougher customers than
Joseph Stalin and Charles De Gaulle.
Roosevelt and Churchill had both experienced the first world war and
seen the failure of the League of Nations. They did not respond to
fascism with a doctrine of pre-emptive war and totalitarian neo-
liberalism. Quite the opposite: just three weeks after the surprise
attack upon Pearl Harbour, they set about creating an agenda that, in
modern terms, is left-wing social democracy. In doing so, they knew
that hard bargaining and unpleasant compromise might be necessary.
They understood that cooperation was essential to survival: a lesson
learnt even before the invention of the atomic bomb. Today, that
lesson has almost been forgotten in America and Britain - though not
elsewhere.
Reasserting the reality that the United Nations is a realist
necessity rather than a liberal accessory becomes much easier once we
remember that it was to the United Nations that the Nazis
surrendered.
Why has this history been lost? I have no clear answer, but I can
offer some suggestions. The new UN organisation wanted a clean start
unencumbered by the wartime experience. The many new nations created
as the British and French empires collapsed regarded the UN as a new
organisation, whose wartime origins seemed of little relevance.
Everyone knew the UN had been created out of the ashes of the war;
there was no need to labour the point.
More importantly, the creation of images of competing evil empires in
the cold war meant that neither right nor left wanted to remember
that they fought the axis together. American conservatives in
particular, who had opposed US involvement in the second world war
and never supported the UN, have been keen to eradicate all reference
to the Democrat Roosevelt's work. Nowadays, journalists assigned to
prepare anniversary coverage may come across the occasional reference
to the United Nations and omit it as an oddity - or even a mistake.
In 2005, as the sixtieth anniversaries of the end of the second world
war and the signing of the UN Charter are commemorated, rediscovering
the role of the United Nations in war and peace is doubly crucial. It
can reinforce the importance of the modern United Nations and strip
away the spurious moral authority the present Anglo-American alliance
tries to claim from the wartime experience.
The signing of the UN Charter in 1945: a timeline
The UN Charter, Article 3, records that the original members of the
UN includes those states that had signed the "Declaration by United
Nations" in Washington on 1 January 1942.
* 14 August 1941: Churchill and Roosevelt issue the Atlantic
Charter of political objectives for the post-war world. These include
freedom from want, social security, labour rights, disarmament, self-
determination, freedom of religion, free trade and a new
international security system
* 1 January 1942: Declaration by United Nations. Twenty-six
nations agree to make no separate peace with the axis of Germany,
Japan and Italy, and subscribe to the Atlantic Charter
* 18 March 1942: General Douglas MacArthur takes command of
United Nations forces in southwest Asia
* 14 June 1942: United States flag day becomes United Nations
flag day in the US, the British Empire and Commonwealth, and other
states. A great parade at Buckingham Palace for United Nations Day
* 1942: United Nations Information Board creates an organisation
that opens offices in New York (and in London in 1943)
* December 1942: United Nations statement about Nazi atrocities
against Jews in Poland
* 14 June 1943: United Nations flag day parades. US issues stamp
of "Nations United" with "United Nations" first day covers
* September 1943: Italy surrenders to General Dwight D Eisenhower
acting for the United Nations
* October 1943: United Nations War Crimes Commission created
* November 1943: Council of the United Nations Relief and
Rehabilation Administration meets in Atlantic City, US
* 1944: United Nations conferences create World Bank and
financial system at Bretton Woods, and set framework for new
international organisation at Dumbarton Oaks
* February 1944: Eisenhower ordered to liberate Europe with the
other United Nations
* 1944: Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania surrender, agreeing to stop
aggression against United Nations; Soviet generals accept their
surrenders on behalf of the United Nations
* 1944: world leaders (Dwight D Eisenhower, Franklin D Roosevelt
and Winston Churchill) make speeches and broadcasts describing the
victories and great armies of the United Nations
* April 1945: United Nations conference on international
organisation opens in San Francisco; US issues commemorative stamp
* May 1945: Nazis surrender and accept the authority of the
United Nations over Germany in Article IV of the surrender document
* 26 June1945: United Nations Charter signed; enters into force
24 October.
__________
SIGN OUR U.N. PETITION TO BAN WEAPONS AND WARFARE IN SPACE
Sign U.N. Petition!
Campaign for Cooperation in Space
www.peaceinspace.org
The history told about the defeat of Nazism and the founding of the
United Nations in the 1940s has become distorted. A false view of the
past is being used today to shape how we think about our future. The
military power of the victorious wartime allies is offered as a model
for running the world, while the UN's supposed utopianism is seen as
ineffective and irrelevant.
This is a travesty of the facts (see the boxed timeline). We are
taught that the UN began with the signing of the Charter in 1945. In
fact, that agreement was the culmination of a complex military and
political effort that began in 1941. Understanding the UN's wartime
origins provides a powerful and much-needed reminder that the UN is
not some liberal accessory but was created out of hard, realistic
political necessity.
The historical records show how Winston Churchill and Franklin D
Roosevelt created the United Nations to win the war both militarily
and politically, and to create the foundations for a lasting peace.
...rediscovering the role of the United Nations in war and peace is
doubly crucial. It can reinforce the importance of the modern United
Nations and strip away the spurious moral authority the present Anglo-
American alliance tries to claim from the wartime experience.
- Dan Plesch, Open Democracy, May 18th
fyi-janet eaton
===========================================
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-28-2519.jsp#
The hidden history of the United Nations
Dan Plesch
18 - 5 - 2005
Dan Plesch rediscovers a forgotten story of the 1940s: how the United
Nations was forged, beat the Nazis and established a lasting peace.
The history told about the defeat of Nazism and the founding of the
United Nations in the 1940s has become distorted. A false view of the
past is being used today to shape how we think about our future. The
military power of the victorious wartime allies is offered as a model
for running the world, while the UN's supposed utopianism is seen as
ineffective and irrelevant.
This is a travesty of the facts (see the boxed timeline). We are
taught that the UN began with the signing of the Charter in 1945. In
fact, that agreement was the culmination of a complex military and
political effort that began in 1941. Understanding the UN's wartime
origins provides a powerful and much-needed reminder that the UN is
not some liberal accessory but was created out of hard, realistic
political necessity.
The historical records show how Winston Churchill and Franklin D
Roosevelt created the United Nations to win the war both militarily
and politically, and to create the foundations for a lasting peace.
Their first expression of Anglo-American policy was in the Atlantic
Charter of 1941; this included freedom from want, social security,
labour rights and disarmament as well as self-determination, free
trade and freedom of religion. Churchill himself remarked during the
height of the fighting in 1944 that the "United Nations is the only
hope of the world".
In the documentary records of the war years, countless references
demonstrate the UN's origin as a strategic engine of victory in the
second world war. The document that formalised the Nazi defeat in the
war includes the words: "This Act of Military Surrender is without
prejudice to, and will be superseded by, any general instrument of
surrender imposed by, or on behalf of, the United Nations on
Germany." President Truman broadcast on 8 May that: "General
Eisenhower informs me that the forces of Germany have surrendered to
the United Nations".
These references may seem odd today. But at the time, it was normal
to talk about the United Nations fighting the war. Major George B
Woods, chaplain to a "band of brothers" in the 82nd Airborne
Division, gave an address for the burial of the dead at Wobbelin
concentration camp. He explained that "these crimes were never
clearly brought to light until the armies of the United Nations
overran Germany".
A real coalition
The "United Nations" had been the official name for the coalition
fighting the axis powers since January 1942, when Roosevelt and
Churchill had led twenty-six nations, including the Soviet Union and
China, in a "Declaration by United Nations".
The declaration committed the twenty-six not to cut separate peace
deals with the Nazis and to subscribe to the principles of the
Atlantic Charter for the post-war world. The Charter provided the
political basis for countering Nazi ideology; it caught the
imagination of people around the world, including the young Nelson
Mandela and other anti-colonial activists.
The United Nations was a real entity, not a spin-doctored slogan
offering a gullible public the promise of world peace at the end of
the war. The allies fought the war as the United Nations and created
organisations in its name and on its foundation. The British Library
holds scores of wartime publications by or about the United Nations.
It was celebrated in music, prayer and exhibitions. Anthologies were
published of the exploits of "Heroes of the United Nations".
In Europe, General Eisenhower accepted the surrender of Fascist Italy
in September 1943, declaring: "Hostilities between the armed forces
of the United Nations and those of Italy terminate at once. All
Italians who now act to help eject the German aggressor from Italian
soil will have the assistance and the support of the United Nations."
He was soon sent to Britain to begin planning for D-Day. His orders
told him to do so in "conjunction with the other United Nations".
Eisenhower's broadcast to the troops aboard their landing craft
reminded them that "the United Nations have inflicted upon the
Germans great defeats, in open battle, man to man". Even the unit
shoulder-patch of his Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force
included a light blue band representing the peace offered to the
enslaved peoples of Europe by the United Nations.
United Nations political bodies were also created during the war.
Their work can still be found in the records of the wartime
organisations and the earliest archives of the post-war UN. In 1942,
United Nations information boards with offices and organisations were
established in New York and London, producing documents on Nazi
atrocities and publicity about the Allied war effort and plans for
the peace. The New York office's mail was franked with the slogan
"United Nations: in War and Peace."
In 1943, the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the United
Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration were created. By
1944, planning for the post-war had gathered momentum and United
Nations conferences were organised at Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton
Woods to tackle the financial and political issues.
A Times headline reported that the economist John Maynard Keynes was
flying to America to create a "United Nations Bank". This is just one
example of thousands of wartime references to the United Nations in
the pages of the Times that are now available through its digital
archive.
In 1945, the United Nations Conference on International Organisation
opened in San Francisco, which the United States postal service
marked with a stamp and special commemorative envelopes.
A lost history
Today, the United Nations is all too often regarded as an unnecessary
bauble attached to the allied victory. At the time, the UN
organisation created in San Francisco was regarded as the grand
culmination of the war effort.
George W Bush and Tony Blair seek to persuade their citizens that
other nations are just too intransigent to deal with in their
campaign to make the world free and safe. They would have us believe
that Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac are tougher customers than
Joseph Stalin and Charles De Gaulle.
Roosevelt and Churchill had both experienced the first world war and
seen the failure of the League of Nations. They did not respond to
fascism with a doctrine of pre-emptive war and totalitarian neo-
liberalism. Quite the opposite: just three weeks after the surprise
attack upon Pearl Harbour, they set about creating an agenda that, in
modern terms, is left-wing social democracy. In doing so, they knew
that hard bargaining and unpleasant compromise might be necessary.
They understood that cooperation was essential to survival: a lesson
learnt even before the invention of the atomic bomb. Today, that
lesson has almost been forgotten in America and Britain - though not
elsewhere.
Reasserting the reality that the United Nations is a realist
necessity rather than a liberal accessory becomes much easier once we
remember that it was to the United Nations that the Nazis
surrendered.
Why has this history been lost? I have no clear answer, but I can
offer some suggestions. The new UN organisation wanted a clean start
unencumbered by the wartime experience. The many new nations created
as the British and French empires collapsed regarded the UN as a new
organisation, whose wartime origins seemed of little relevance.
Everyone knew the UN had been created out of the ashes of the war;
there was no need to labour the point.
More importantly, the creation of images of competing evil empires in
the cold war meant that neither right nor left wanted to remember
that they fought the axis together. American conservatives in
particular, who had opposed US involvement in the second world war
and never supported the UN, have been keen to eradicate all reference
to the Democrat Roosevelt's work. Nowadays, journalists assigned to
prepare anniversary coverage may come across the occasional reference
to the United Nations and omit it as an oddity - or even a mistake.
In 2005, as the sixtieth anniversaries of the end of the second world
war and the signing of the UN Charter are commemorated, rediscovering
the role of the United Nations in war and peace is doubly crucial. It
can reinforce the importance of the modern United Nations and strip
away the spurious moral authority the present Anglo-American alliance
tries to claim from the wartime experience.
The signing of the UN Charter in 1945: a timeline
The UN Charter, Article 3, records that the original members of the
UN includes those states that had signed the "Declaration by United
Nations" in Washington on 1 January 1942.
* 14 August 1941: Churchill and Roosevelt issue the Atlantic
Charter of political objectives for the post-war world. These include
freedom from want, social security, labour rights, disarmament, self-
determination, freedom of religion, free trade and a new
international security system
* 1 January 1942: Declaration by United Nations. Twenty-six
nations agree to make no separate peace with the axis of Germany,
Japan and Italy, and subscribe to the Atlantic Charter
* 18 March 1942: General Douglas MacArthur takes command of
United Nations forces in southwest Asia
* 14 June 1942: United States flag day becomes United Nations
flag day in the US, the British Empire and Commonwealth, and other
states. A great parade at Buckingham Palace for United Nations Day
* 1942: United Nations Information Board creates an organisation
that opens offices in New York (and in London in 1943)
* December 1942: United Nations statement about Nazi atrocities
against Jews in Poland
* 14 June 1943: United Nations flag day parades. US issues stamp
of "Nations United" with "United Nations" first day covers
* September 1943: Italy surrenders to General Dwight D Eisenhower
acting for the United Nations
* October 1943: United Nations War Crimes Commission created
* November 1943: Council of the United Nations Relief and
Rehabilation Administration meets in Atlantic City, US
* 1944: United Nations conferences create World Bank and
financial system at Bretton Woods, and set framework for new
international organisation at Dumbarton Oaks
* February 1944: Eisenhower ordered to liberate Europe with the
other United Nations
* 1944: Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania surrender, agreeing to stop
aggression against United Nations; Soviet generals accept their
surrenders on behalf of the United Nations
* 1944: world leaders (Dwight D Eisenhower, Franklin D Roosevelt
and Winston Churchill) make speeches and broadcasts describing the
victories and great armies of the United Nations
* April 1945: United Nations conference on international
organisation opens in San Francisco; US issues commemorative stamp
* May 1945: Nazis surrender and accept the authority of the
United Nations over Germany in Article IV of the surrender document
* 26 June1945: United Nations Charter signed; enters into force
24 October.
__________
SIGN OUR U.N. PETITION TO BAN WEAPONS AND WARFARE IN SPACE
Sign U.N. Petition!
Campaign for Cooperation in Space
www.peaceinspace.org
Exopolitics Interview, Alfred L. Webre
Vancouver, BC
Q: How could advanced non-terrestrial contact assist us out of our "petroleum-nuclear planetary coffin" and aid us in leading a sustainable society? Where do you see us in, say 11 years [by 2012] and 50 years [by 2050]?
A: The essence of exopolitics is that our relationships depend on our interaction. Right now, our official human culture denies the existence of the ecology of intelligent civilizations that surround us in space and among the interactive Universe dimensions. There is not very far that we can get with that kind of denial. We are a sort of autistic civilization, insistent on the fact that we alone are alive. That autism is artificial. It is the result of a ruling network of terrestrial elites who have kept humanity ignorant of the existence of non-terrestrial civilizations for at least the past half-century, since the end of World War II. Open interaction with Universe society could yield fairly rapid results in forestalling our ecological crisis, and elevating human society. New energy non-polluting energy sources - of human design and application could at last be made available without their inventor's fearing assassination by petroleum and nuclear interests. Our petroleum civilization would be stalemated and made obsolete. Universe society's laws and institutions prohibit war as a conflict resolution mechanism. The ruling terrestrial elites - and the permanent war economy - have historically used war as a key means of production and power.
Exopolitics is the study of law, government and politics in the Universe. It is Universe law, government, and politics that will liberate human society.
As to the time frame, that is dependent on human interactivity. We must build an exopolitical grass-roots on Earth - a Decade of Contact for community politics and education about Universe society and our Universal heritage.
Q: What encompases our Universe society? What do you believe is actually going on here? A re-integration? Has there been a continuous, hidden, non-terrestrial presence on earth throughout history?; What is your theory on non-terrestrial intervention?
A: Universal law encompasses all of the Universe - Universal law and justice exist and govern all intelligent life in the Universe. Universe society is one society - a multiplicity of societies under Universal law.
Human society, by analogy, is a unitary, multi-cultural society on a single life-bearing planet.
We are to Universe society as a garden is to the gardener. Life-bearing planets and the life species on them are grown and developed by dimensional civilizations which are devoted to this.
There are many inter-acting facets to what we call "Non-terrestrial" or "Extraterrestrial". What we see as "Interstellar space" is but one dimension of a multi-dimensional Universe. Thus advanced, interplanetary civilizations are in fact, "multi-dimensional", "extraterrestrial" "interstellar" and perhaps even "planetary" on another life-bearing planet. What is of important to Exopolitics is that all of this reality - all interactions and relationships by intelligent life in the Universe -are ruled by law, government and politics.
Q: Are global management bodies in contact with some sort of Galactic Federation or with some sort of supernatural spiritual adepts?
A: Possibly. From some evidence there may have been fifty years of intrigue and power relationships between a lower order non-terrestrial force and USA military-intelligence networks. Conversely, the highest covert priority of the USA military over the last 50 years appears to be waging an information war against the non-terrestrial presence - a knowledge embargo; black propaganda and black ops to demonize the non-terrestrials.
But this is almost beside the point in the long run.
Universe society is acting to increase the awareness of the human race as a whole. Open interaction with the highest levels of Universe society is designed for the evolution of the human race, not the illusory temporal power needs of a few white men.
Q: If your 1977 Carter White House Extraterrestrial Communication Study had not been terminated, what would you have found? Would we have had disclosure over the last 25 years? How would today be different?
A: We would most probably be now acting under 25 years of open disclosure. The differences could be incalculable, with that degree of power and authority to open up interaction and get beyond the zero-sum game of the death forces that now enforce the embargo against open contact.
"The only way out is through," the saying goes. Well, we didn't get through under the Carter Administration, so now we must get through at the grass-roots.
Q: Are the non-terrestrials acclimating/acclimatizing us to their presence? What must humanity do before they exist with us more openly?
A: Yes. Acclimating is a good term for this process. The entire UFO phenomenon can be seen as a vast peripheral-cuing mass psychological condition project to enhance our awareness of higher intelligence in the Universe.
Humanity is in a very good place, psychologically and Universally. Between 50 and 100 million adult North Americans (between 25% and 50% of the adult populations - Gallup and Zogby polls) believe in the reality of extraterrestrial presence on Earth. They will not have a problem absorbing the new post-reality.
The difficulty is not the human population - it is the networks of human governments and the ownership of a petroleum and nuclear energy civilization that is in the hands of retrogressive forces. The ruling terrestrial elites are not ignorant of the non-terrestrial presence. They are actively carrying out a fifty year information war against our integration with Universe society.
Q: Please offer your thoughts on weapons in space; killer comets/asteroids; the role of the United Nations with non-terrestrial contact; some sort of shift in the consciousness of humanity.
A: The USA's "Star Wars" and the militarization of space is part of the information war against Earth's integration with Universe society. Star Wars is an "inside code word" for this war among the military planners. The issue is whether our space technology will be in accord with Universal principles, or controlled by a military empire. Dealing with near earth objects is a common application of space technology. The USA will ultimately suffer ignominious defeat by Universe society should it persist as a space military power.
Q: Exopolitics seems to involve elite power groups- information, propaganda, coverup, disclosure;etc. What is the situation concerning pro and anti-disclosure factions? Will the non-terrestrials bypass this earth-style politics?
A: Exopolitics merely describes a process - that of law, politics and government in the Universe. Politics does not end at the geostationary orbit. It is Universal.
The task of our generation is to make exopolitics at the grassroots level. Where are the concerts on behalf of integrating with the Universe? Where are the artists, the activists, the students, the writers, the militants? Answer - they are coping with the effects of the information war and the embargo against even thinking that non-terrestrial civilization.
How do we bust out into a grassroots exopolitics - like the Peace movement, say of the 1960s-80s?
Q: What essential points are you trying to make in EXOPOLITICS: POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN THE UNIVERSE?
A: Exopolitics is more than extraterrestrial politics. Exopolitics is real and an immediate part of Earth's social ecology. Exopolitics, as a discipline, is the study of politics, government and law in the Universe. It is an authentic, newly received branch of human knowledge, as well as an exciting frontier. Exopolitics is also the self-regulating process of a populated, highly advanced and organized Universe. Exopolitics provides the institutional framework for Earth's integration into Universe society. That process is now ongoing and will accelerate as exopolitical realities are awakened in humankind.
Q: What, in your mind, are the political implications of the book EXOPOLITICS: POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN THE UNIVERSE?
A: Well, we don’t know yet the impact of the Exopolitics perspective. But the implications of exopolitics itself for human politics are profound. The change to be brought about is not a sea change, it is a Universe change for human kind. The current paradigm of human politics has the political process ending at Earth's edge (as the human law of outer space establishes). Exopolitics mediates Earth's political and governmental relationships with societies and organizations in interplanetary society. The impact of exopolitics on human politics will be transformative. An aware Grass roots politics will deconstruct the information war waged against the Extraterrestrial Initiative, largely by Echelon countries (USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada). Humankind will reclaim their Universal rights to Universal citizenship. Earth's politics will extend to the exopolitics of other societies in the Universe.
Q: How do your credentials and background bolster the disclosure process?
A: I think of my contribution to the exopolitical process in terms of praxis, the melding of theory and practice. As theory, in The Age of Cataclysm (1974) we developed the context theory of extraterrestrial communications. That is, interpreting UFO encounters and the UFO phenomenon as intentional communication, through an analogue of dream interpretation theory. Many UFO encounters are archetypal communications from a higher source. The UFO phenomenon itself can be seen as peripheral cueing of our species with a goal of activating Universe awareness. These UFO-based communications are part of our process of Universe integration.
As practice, in 1977, as a futurist with the Center for the Study of Social Policy at SRI, I formulated and developed a proposed study with the Carter White House on extraterrestrial communication. That study was brutally terminated by the intervention of the SRI-Pentagon liaison in September, 1977. So I am familiar with the information war, and am a practitioner of exopolitics.
Q: If you were to narrow down the most important aspect of your contribution to this process, what would it be?
A: This question itself illustrates the fresh perspective exopolitics brings. "Important" from whose perspective: the perspective of terrestrial civilization, or the Extraterrestrial Initiative? The Extraterrestrial phenomenon - in its Universal manifestation - is interactive, highly evolved, multi-dimensional (I am not talking about near-Earth remnants of our Universe quarantine). I am still not quite sure how my actions might be "important" from an Extraterrestrial perspective. Thanks for the question.
Vancouver, BC
Interview by Graham Simms
The Gazette (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
University Newspaper
Copyright 2001
Q: How could advanced non-terrestrial contact assist us out of our "petroleum-nuclear planetary coffin" and aid us in leading a sustainable society? Where do you see us in, say 11 years [by 2012] and 50 years [by 2050]?
A: The essence of exopolitics is that our relationships depend on our interaction. Right now, our official human culture denies the existence of the ecology of intelligent civilizations that surround us in space and among the interactive Universe dimensions. There is not very far that we can get with that kind of denial. We are a sort of autistic civilization, insistent on the fact that we alone are alive. That autism is artificial. It is the result of a ruling network of terrestrial elites who have kept humanity ignorant of the existence of non-terrestrial civilizations for at least the past half-century, since the end of World War II. Open interaction with Universe society could yield fairly rapid results in forestalling our ecological crisis, and elevating human society. New energy non-polluting energy sources - of human design and application could at last be made available without their inventor's fearing assassination by petroleum and nuclear interests. Our petroleum civilization would be stalemated and made obsolete. Universe society's laws and institutions prohibit war as a conflict resolution mechanism. The ruling terrestrial elites - and the permanent war economy - have historically used war as a key means of production and power.
Exopolitics is the study of law, government and politics in the Universe. It is Universe law, government, and politics that will liberate human society.
As to the time frame, that is dependent on human interactivity. We must build an exopolitical grass-roots on Earth - a Decade of Contact for community politics and education about Universe society and our Universal heritage.
Q: What encompases our Universe society? What do you believe is actually going on here? A re-integration? Has there been a continuous, hidden, non-terrestrial presence on earth throughout history?; What is your theory on non-terrestrial intervention?
A: Universal law encompasses all of the Universe - Universal law and justice exist and govern all intelligent life in the Universe. Universe society is one society - a multiplicity of societies under Universal law.
Human society, by analogy, is a unitary, multi-cultural society on a single life-bearing planet.
We are to Universe society as a garden is to the gardener. Life-bearing planets and the life species on them are grown and developed by dimensional civilizations which are devoted to this.
There are many inter-acting facets to what we call "Non-terrestrial" or "Extraterrestrial". What we see as "Interstellar space" is but one dimension of a multi-dimensional Universe. Thus advanced, interplanetary civilizations are in fact, "multi-dimensional", "extraterrestrial" "interstellar" and perhaps even "planetary" on another life-bearing planet. What is of important to Exopolitics is that all of this reality - all interactions and relationships by intelligent life in the Universe -are ruled by law, government and politics.
Q: Are global management bodies in contact with some sort of Galactic Federation or with some sort of supernatural spiritual adepts?
A: Possibly. From some evidence there may have been fifty years of intrigue and power relationships between a lower order non-terrestrial force and USA military-intelligence networks. Conversely, the highest covert priority of the USA military over the last 50 years appears to be waging an information war against the non-terrestrial presence - a knowledge embargo; black propaganda and black ops to demonize the non-terrestrials.
But this is almost beside the point in the long run.
Universe society is acting to increase the awareness of the human race as a whole. Open interaction with the highest levels of Universe society is designed for the evolution of the human race, not the illusory temporal power needs of a few white men.
Q: If your 1977 Carter White House Extraterrestrial Communication Study had not been terminated, what would you have found? Would we have had disclosure over the last 25 years? How would today be different?
A: We would most probably be now acting under 25 years of open disclosure. The differences could be incalculable, with that degree of power and authority to open up interaction and get beyond the zero-sum game of the death forces that now enforce the embargo against open contact.
"The only way out is through," the saying goes. Well, we didn't get through under the Carter Administration, so now we must get through at the grass-roots.
Q: Are the non-terrestrials acclimating/acclimatizing us to their presence? What must humanity do before they exist with us more openly?
A: Yes. Acclimating is a good term for this process. The entire UFO phenomenon can be seen as a vast peripheral-cuing mass psychological condition project to enhance our awareness of higher intelligence in the Universe.
Humanity is in a very good place, psychologically and Universally. Between 50 and 100 million adult North Americans (between 25% and 50% of the adult populations - Gallup and Zogby polls) believe in the reality of extraterrestrial presence on Earth. They will not have a problem absorbing the new post-reality.
The difficulty is not the human population - it is the networks of human governments and the ownership of a petroleum and nuclear energy civilization that is in the hands of retrogressive forces. The ruling terrestrial elites are not ignorant of the non-terrestrial presence. They are actively carrying out a fifty year information war against our integration with Universe society.
Q: Please offer your thoughts on weapons in space; killer comets/asteroids; the role of the United Nations with non-terrestrial contact; some sort of shift in the consciousness of humanity.
A: The USA's "Star Wars" and the militarization of space is part of the information war against Earth's integration with Universe society. Star Wars is an "inside code word" for this war among the military planners. The issue is whether our space technology will be in accord with Universal principles, or controlled by a military empire. Dealing with near earth objects is a common application of space technology. The USA will ultimately suffer ignominious defeat by Universe society should it persist as a space military power.
Q: Exopolitics seems to involve elite power groups- information, propaganda, coverup, disclosure;etc. What is the situation concerning pro and anti-disclosure factions? Will the non-terrestrials bypass this earth-style politics?
A: Exopolitics merely describes a process - that of law, politics and government in the Universe. Politics does not end at the geostationary orbit. It is Universal.
The task of our generation is to make exopolitics at the grassroots level. Where are the concerts on behalf of integrating with the Universe? Where are the artists, the activists, the students, the writers, the militants? Answer - they are coping with the effects of the information war and the embargo against even thinking that non-terrestrial civilization.
How do we bust out into a grassroots exopolitics - like the Peace movement, say of the 1960s-80s?
Q: What essential points are you trying to make in EXOPOLITICS: POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN THE UNIVERSE?
A: Exopolitics is more than extraterrestrial politics. Exopolitics is real and an immediate part of Earth's social ecology. Exopolitics, as a discipline, is the study of politics, government and law in the Universe. It is an authentic, newly received branch of human knowledge, as well as an exciting frontier. Exopolitics is also the self-regulating process of a populated, highly advanced and organized Universe. Exopolitics provides the institutional framework for Earth's integration into Universe society. That process is now ongoing and will accelerate as exopolitical realities are awakened in humankind.
Q: What, in your mind, are the political implications of the book EXOPOLITICS: POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN THE UNIVERSE?
A: Well, we don’t know yet the impact of the Exopolitics perspective. But the implications of exopolitics itself for human politics are profound. The change to be brought about is not a sea change, it is a Universe change for human kind. The current paradigm of human politics has the political process ending at Earth's edge (as the human law of outer space establishes). Exopolitics mediates Earth's political and governmental relationships with societies and organizations in interplanetary society. The impact of exopolitics on human politics will be transformative. An aware Grass roots politics will deconstruct the information war waged against the Extraterrestrial Initiative, largely by Echelon countries (USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada). Humankind will reclaim their Universal rights to Universal citizenship. Earth's politics will extend to the exopolitics of other societies in the Universe.
Q: How do your credentials and background bolster the disclosure process?
A: I think of my contribution to the exopolitical process in terms of praxis, the melding of theory and practice. As theory, in The Age of Cataclysm (1974) we developed the context theory of extraterrestrial communications. That is, interpreting UFO encounters and the UFO phenomenon as intentional communication, through an analogue of dream interpretation theory. Many UFO encounters are archetypal communications from a higher source. The UFO phenomenon itself can be seen as peripheral cueing of our species with a goal of activating Universe awareness. These UFO-based communications are part of our process of Universe integration.
As practice, in 1977, as a futurist with the Center for the Study of Social Policy at SRI, I formulated and developed a proposed study with the Carter White House on extraterrestrial communication. That study was brutally terminated by the intervention of the SRI-Pentagon liaison in September, 1977. So I am familiar with the information war, and am a practitioner of exopolitics.
Q: If you were to narrow down the most important aspect of your contribution to this process, what would it be?
A: This question itself illustrates the fresh perspective exopolitics brings. "Important" from whose perspective: the perspective of terrestrial civilization, or the Extraterrestrial Initiative? The Extraterrestrial phenomenon - in its Universal manifestation - is interactive, highly evolved, multi-dimensional (I am not talking about near-Earth remnants of our Universe quarantine). I am still not quite sure how my actions might be "important" from an Extraterrestrial perspective. Thanks for the question.
Vancouver, BC
Interview by Graham Simms
The Gazette (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
University Newspaper
Copyright 2001
Peter Jennings Program
MUFON Journal column by Stanton T. Friedman
March 3, 2005
By the time you read this you will have read a ton of verbiage about the February 24 Peter Jennings ABC "UFOs: Seeing is Believing." I think it is appropriate for me to comment since so many people sent me emails about it. Almost all were sympathetic about what they considered the unfair treatment that I and the Roswell incident received.
The producers in Roswell interviewed me for over an hour in July, 2004. Don Schmitt who has been active in Roswell research for many years was also interviewed. He and a film crew actually went out to the site, which was marked out for more archeological digging. I believe about 20 seconds of my interview was shown with none of Don's nor of the scientific work site. I had been cautiously optimistic after hearing a few weeks before the showing that I had made the cut, but that 100 people had not. My optimism decreased when I heard that Seth Shostak, Frank Drake, and Jill Tartar, (SETI Specialists) and Michael Shermer, skeptic, were going to be on. Despite all their writing about SETI, it was clear that none knew anything about UFOs. Proclamation is not the same as investigation. I had jokingly told people that, after all, Peter Jennings and I were both dual citizens of the USA and Canada and, surprisingly, both had been born on July 29. How could I not trust him? I didn't place enough emphasis on the fact that Benito Mussolini was also born on July 29.
I was favorably impressed with the first portion with interviews with aircraft crew members, comments about Blue Book's focus on explaining away sightings and the interview with Major Friend whom I had met at Blue Book in the early 1960s. The second half of the show was like a horror film. The SETI people waxed poetic about their wonderful search for ET Signals. There was no indication of any knowledge of UFOs other than one of the sillier moments of the show when Jill Tartar described having a sighting of the moon partially obscured by clouds. This was worth recreating?? One can see why the SETI people don't want to deal with eyewitness testimony. I think one could also see why I say that SETI stands for Silly Effort to Investigate and why I talk of the cult of SETI: Charismatic hand waving, very strong dogma (they must be out there, they can't be coming here, we will make the most important discovery in Man's history a signal from a distant civilization, and nobody could possibly come here -- if they did, we would be out of a job) and strong irrational claims about the absence of evidence. Meaning "we don't dare review it." Dr. Tyson joined the crowd and proclaimed that eyewitness testimony may be OK in court, but not in science. Tell Jane Goodall that.
Several times PJ used the term "mainstream science" along with a proclamation about its non-acceptance of UFO reality. No evidence was presented. It appears that the only mainstream science he was talking about was astronomy. Think of chemists, biologists, geologists, us physicists, etc. Much of science today was based on eyewitness testimony of something unusual. Think Roentgen and X-rays. I believe that most mainstream scientists like me believe that the methodology has to suit the problem. Unpredictable, brief appearances of strange craft (not under the control of the observer or of Mother Nature) behaving in strange ways require eyewitness testimony as, of course, do airplane crashes, crimes, etc. Shostak proclaims when he finds a signal they will tell everybody else who will then verify it and anybody can use his own antenna. What happens if the transmission stops? How many can afford their own Hat Creek Telescope System? Does he think the signal will be "Testing 1, 2" repeated over and over again? That we can order the saucer to stop while we do measurements?
PJ claimed that mainstream science doesn't accept the UFO evidence. This was yet another misrepresentation. Polls have consistently shown that the greater the education the more likely to accept UFO reality. Two polls of R and D people showed that about 2/3 of them who expressed an opinion said flying saucers were real. But then they live in the real world unlike the SETI cultists.
The program contained, as might be expected, based on past experience, a major putdown on star travel from people who know absolutely nothing about space travel. We were told that the Voyageur spacecraft, our fastest space craft launched 30 years ago, will take 73,000 years to reach the nearest star and that the fastest man made object goes only 11 miles per second compared to the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second. Wow! Sounds like we sure can't get there from here. These are both totally misleading. The Voyager hasn't been attached to a propulsion system since it left the vicinity of the earth!! It is coasting. This is like tossing a bottle into the ocean or a feather in the air as a basis for estimating crossing time for the Queen Mary 2 or the SST or the space station.
We physicists have accelerated particles in the vacuum chambers of expensive accelerators to speeds of 99.99% of the speed of light. Eleven miles per second is absurd. Space is a very large vacuum chamber. These totally misleading comments rank on a par with Dr. Simon Newcombe's claim in October, 1903 (2 months before the Wright Brothers' first flight) that the only way man would fly would be with the help of a balloon. Dr. Bickerton in the 1920s proved "scientifically" that it would be impossible to provide enough energy to put anything into orbit. Dr. Campbell in 1941 "scientifically" calculated that the required initial launch weight of a rocket able to get a man to the moon and back would be a million million tons. He was, because of his total ignorance about space flight, off by a factor of 300,000,000. All three were, like the SETI cultists, astronomers. With this track record, why believe any of their proclamations? I was involved more than 40 years ago in work on a fusion propulsion system able to eject particles having 10 million times as much energy per particle as in a chemical rocket. This, of course, was not presented. After all, I was just a promoter.
A real hatchet job was done on Budd Hopkins in the show's segment on UFO abductions. The witnesses were OK, but then we have the off-the-wall proclamations about sleep paralysis being the explanation coupled with hypnosis to generate false testimony from the witnesses. All the data provided by Budd about the fact that many abductions don't take place in bed (think Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton, etc), that there are many cases when more than one person is abducted (is sleep paralysis contagious?), that at least 30% of abduction investigations do not involve hypnosis, and there are physical markings, was left on the cutting room floor. Budd has worked with over 600 abductees. Had the 2 Harvard psychologists worked with more than a dozen? Why wasn't any of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack's interview run? The pronouncement that there is no benefit of hypnosis in memory enhancement is false. Phil Klass made the same claim to me, but stopped when I provided an article about a stonemason being able, under hypnosis, to describe tiny details on a particular stone that he had placed years earlier.
Finally we have the Roswell segment. I was introduced as a Roswell promoter. The term was used twice. There was no mention of the fact that I was a nuclear physicist who had worked for the likes of GE, GM, Westinghouse, etc. The totally unjustifiable term "myth" was used at least twice. PJ should be ashamed. Jesse Marcel junior was filmed. There was no mention of the fact that he is a medical doctor, a Flight surgeon Colonel in the reserve, and serving in Iraq despite being 67. His father was called an intelligence officer, but without adding that the group was the most elite military group in the world, the 509th, which had dropped the A-bombs on Japan. Don't these facts go to credibility? Of course I am a Roswell promoter, based on 27 years of research and investigation and the outlay of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours and finding loads of supporting testimony, visits to 20 Document Archives, all ignored by the noisy negativists and none presented in the program.
At the request of the producers I had provided a total of 57 videos from which they used a few clips. One video was the 105-minute "Recollections of Roswell" which included testimony from 27 witness including Retired General Thomas Jefferson DuBose. He told me of taking the call from General Clements McMullen, head of SAC, who was the boss of 8th Air Force Commander Roger Ramey (who was DuBose's boss) ordering him to get the press off their back, send some wreckage up here today, and never talk about it again.
For reasons unknown they had historian Robert Goldberg tell the Roswell tale although he was seriously in error in his description of Roswell in his book about conspiracies and on the show. They gave Karl Pflock quite a bit of time with his Roswell debunking. They blindly accepted the Mogul Balloon explanation even though there is no evidence to support it, the materials characteristics don't match witness testimony, and the dates and locations are wrong. They stressed the high security for Mogul -- vastly overstated since several launches were allowed to just drop in the desert, no chase planes or ground teams. At least the crash test dummies weren't paraded. I have dealt with all the objections in my MUFON 2003 paper "Critiquing the Roswell Critics."
The real promoters on the show were the SETI cultists with their myths. They have no evidence of any kind that there is anybody out there, that there are signals being sent, that they can receive and interpret such signals if there are any, using our primitive technology. An AM radio can't pick up FM signals. They can't admit that there is overwhelming evidence of alien visitation.
It appears that the producers were perfectly willing to present some interesting testimony though they left out things like Project Blue Book Special Report 14, or other large scale scientific studies, and the statement by AF General Carroll Bolender that reports of UFOs which could effect national security were not part of the Blue Book system. But the three areas of investigation that clearly together establish both the cover-up and that the planet is being visited (Roswell and the abductions and the fact that interstellar travel is feasible with reasonable trip times) were trashed. Sounds like when push came to shove they lacked any courage at all. It was nice to give a neat segment at the end of the program to Dr. Michio Kaku saying that maybe visitors are well ahead of us and can warp space and time. Fusion propulsion systems are much closer in time. Blacked out and whited out government UFO documents force one to the conclusion that the government is not just incompetent with Blue Book, but lying through its teeth.
Perhaps I should mention that only 11.6 million people watched the show. The Unsolved Mysteries program on NBC in 1989 about Roswell was seen by over 28 million people the first time around and 30 million the second time.
Particularly irritating was the frequent mention of lights in the sky, billions of stars, and absence of physical evidence. There was not even the slightest mention of Ted Phillips's 3000+ excellent physical trace cases from 90 countries. Why show Chris McKay digging in desert dirt and not the traces left by a UFO?
Frankly, I was also bothered by the proclamations by nasty noisy negativist retired USAF officer James McGaha. We had a full-scale debate in Tennessee. The video is noted at my website www.stantonfriedman.com. It is easy to say we need both sides. But is that true when one does his research by investigation and the other does it by proclamation?
-------
Over the years I have been involved in the making of a number of documentaries about UFOs. These include "UFOs ARE Real," "Flying Saucers ARE Real (2 Vols.)," "Stanton T. Friedman IS Real!," "Do you Believe in MAJIC?" and in numerous interviews for a wide variety of producers of shows that have aired on the History Channel, The Discovery Channel, TLC, etc. Therefore, I am really puzzled about certain aspects of the Peter Jennings Productions UFO special seen on ABC on February 24, 2005. The word is that 150 people were interviewed and only 50 made the cut. That is far more than would be required for a 2-hour special. I had heard just before the broadcast that an interview was done with Harvard psychaitrist Dr. John Mack that would not be used. It surely would have made a good counterweight to the two Harvard psychologists falsely explaining away abductions as sleep paralysis enhanced with hypnosis. It was only after the broadcast that I found out how many extended interviews with very sharp people hadn't been used. Richard Hall, Dr. Richard Haines, Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Bernard Haisch, John Schuessler, John Greenewald, Ted Roe of NARCAP, etc. I saw the people who interviewed Don Schmitt (no air time) and myself (20 seconds, and referring to me as a promoter twice, and calling Roswell a myth at least twice) in Roswell with Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell. None of this is in the PJP show. Crews for PJP travelled a lot including, for example, to the MUFON Conference in Denver. There was no mention of MUFON in the program though CUFOS was given a lot of time with old footage of Dr. J. Allan Hynek as well. Strangely he was portrayed as a courageous loner, the only one standing up to the debunkers -- a totally misleading portrayal. The question thus arises as to why spend at least many hundreds of thousand dollars to collect far more footage than could possibly be used? Perhaps they will do another special using "the good stuff"? I doubt it.
But if one wanted a real state-of-the-art survey of ufology on who knows what, is there a better cover story than that a company linked to Peter Jennings, the last remaining Big Time Network news anchor, is making a hard-hitting 2-hour special? People are flattered to be asked to contribute. Many of us were questioned for more than an hour. It might also be possible when reviewing the tapes to get clues as to who might be speaking out of turn. The crews were very tight about who all they talked to. Is it really surprising that the harshest attacks came down on Roswell, the reality of abductions and the reality of interstellar flight? Glorifying the Silly Effort To Investigate cultists provides a great deal of misdirection away from the reality of UFOs and the government cover-up. The footage would be a feast for the minions of whatever group is taking Majestic 12's place to help plan their strategy for debunking and also for possible future release of data. I suspect they are also collecting reactions to the program. I would really like to collect the names of those who were interviewed but didn't make the cut besides those given above.
Stan Friedman
www.stantonfriedman.com
March 3, 2005
By the time you read this you will have read a ton of verbiage about the February 24 Peter Jennings ABC "UFOs: Seeing is Believing." I think it is appropriate for me to comment since so many people sent me emails about it. Almost all were sympathetic about what they considered the unfair treatment that I and the Roswell incident received.
The producers in Roswell interviewed me for over an hour in July, 2004. Don Schmitt who has been active in Roswell research for many years was also interviewed. He and a film crew actually went out to the site, which was marked out for more archeological digging. I believe about 20 seconds of my interview was shown with none of Don's nor of the scientific work site. I had been cautiously optimistic after hearing a few weeks before the showing that I had made the cut, but that 100 people had not. My optimism decreased when I heard that Seth Shostak, Frank Drake, and Jill Tartar, (SETI Specialists) and Michael Shermer, skeptic, were going to be on. Despite all their writing about SETI, it was clear that none knew anything about UFOs. Proclamation is not the same as investigation. I had jokingly told people that, after all, Peter Jennings and I were both dual citizens of the USA and Canada and, surprisingly, both had been born on July 29. How could I not trust him? I didn't place enough emphasis on the fact that Benito Mussolini was also born on July 29.
I was favorably impressed with the first portion with interviews with aircraft crew members, comments about Blue Book's focus on explaining away sightings and the interview with Major Friend whom I had met at Blue Book in the early 1960s. The second half of the show was like a horror film. The SETI people waxed poetic about their wonderful search for ET Signals. There was no indication of any knowledge of UFOs other than one of the sillier moments of the show when Jill Tartar described having a sighting of the moon partially obscured by clouds. This was worth recreating?? One can see why the SETI people don't want to deal with eyewitness testimony. I think one could also see why I say that SETI stands for Silly Effort to Investigate and why I talk of the cult of SETI: Charismatic hand waving, very strong dogma (they must be out there, they can't be coming here, we will make the most important discovery in Man's history a signal from a distant civilization, and nobody could possibly come here -- if they did, we would be out of a job) and strong irrational claims about the absence of evidence. Meaning "we don't dare review it." Dr. Tyson joined the crowd and proclaimed that eyewitness testimony may be OK in court, but not in science. Tell Jane Goodall that.
Several times PJ used the term "mainstream science" along with a proclamation about its non-acceptance of UFO reality. No evidence was presented. It appears that the only mainstream science he was talking about was astronomy. Think of chemists, biologists, geologists, us physicists, etc. Much of science today was based on eyewitness testimony of something unusual. Think Roentgen and X-rays. I believe that most mainstream scientists like me believe that the methodology has to suit the problem. Unpredictable, brief appearances of strange craft (not under the control of the observer or of Mother Nature) behaving in strange ways require eyewitness testimony as, of course, do airplane crashes, crimes, etc. Shostak proclaims when he finds a signal they will tell everybody else who will then verify it and anybody can use his own antenna. What happens if the transmission stops? How many can afford their own Hat Creek Telescope System? Does he think the signal will be "Testing 1, 2" repeated over and over again? That we can order the saucer to stop while we do measurements?
PJ claimed that mainstream science doesn't accept the UFO evidence. This was yet another misrepresentation. Polls have consistently shown that the greater the education the more likely to accept UFO reality. Two polls of R and D people showed that about 2/3 of them who expressed an opinion said flying saucers were real. But then they live in the real world unlike the SETI cultists.
The program contained, as might be expected, based on past experience, a major putdown on star travel from people who know absolutely nothing about space travel. We were told that the Voyageur spacecraft, our fastest space craft launched 30 years ago, will take 73,000 years to reach the nearest star and that the fastest man made object goes only 11 miles per second compared to the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second. Wow! Sounds like we sure can't get there from here. These are both totally misleading. The Voyager hasn't been attached to a propulsion system since it left the vicinity of the earth!! It is coasting. This is like tossing a bottle into the ocean or a feather in the air as a basis for estimating crossing time for the Queen Mary 2 or the SST or the space station.
We physicists have accelerated particles in the vacuum chambers of expensive accelerators to speeds of 99.99% of the speed of light. Eleven miles per second is absurd. Space is a very large vacuum chamber. These totally misleading comments rank on a par with Dr. Simon Newcombe's claim in October, 1903 (2 months before the Wright Brothers' first flight) that the only way man would fly would be with the help of a balloon. Dr. Bickerton in the 1920s proved "scientifically" that it would be impossible to provide enough energy to put anything into orbit. Dr. Campbell in 1941 "scientifically" calculated that the required initial launch weight of a rocket able to get a man to the moon and back would be a million million tons. He was, because of his total ignorance about space flight, off by a factor of 300,000,000. All three were, like the SETI cultists, astronomers. With this track record, why believe any of their proclamations? I was involved more than 40 years ago in work on a fusion propulsion system able to eject particles having 10 million times as much energy per particle as in a chemical rocket. This, of course, was not presented. After all, I was just a promoter.
A real hatchet job was done on Budd Hopkins in the show's segment on UFO abductions. The witnesses were OK, but then we have the off-the-wall proclamations about sleep paralysis being the explanation coupled with hypnosis to generate false testimony from the witnesses. All the data provided by Budd about the fact that many abductions don't take place in bed (think Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton, etc), that there are many cases when more than one person is abducted (is sleep paralysis contagious?), that at least 30% of abduction investigations do not involve hypnosis, and there are physical markings, was left on the cutting room floor. Budd has worked with over 600 abductees. Had the 2 Harvard psychologists worked with more than a dozen? Why wasn't any of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack's interview run? The pronouncement that there is no benefit of hypnosis in memory enhancement is false. Phil Klass made the same claim to me, but stopped when I provided an article about a stonemason being able, under hypnosis, to describe tiny details on a particular stone that he had placed years earlier.
Finally we have the Roswell segment. I was introduced as a Roswell promoter. The term was used twice. There was no mention of the fact that I was a nuclear physicist who had worked for the likes of GE, GM, Westinghouse, etc. The totally unjustifiable term "myth" was used at least twice. PJ should be ashamed. Jesse Marcel junior was filmed. There was no mention of the fact that he is a medical doctor, a Flight surgeon Colonel in the reserve, and serving in Iraq despite being 67. His father was called an intelligence officer, but without adding that the group was the most elite military group in the world, the 509th, which had dropped the A-bombs on Japan. Don't these facts go to credibility? Of course I am a Roswell promoter, based on 27 years of research and investigation and the outlay of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours and finding loads of supporting testimony, visits to 20 Document Archives, all ignored by the noisy negativists and none presented in the program.
At the request of the producers I had provided a total of 57 videos from which they used a few clips. One video was the 105-minute "Recollections of Roswell" which included testimony from 27 witness including Retired General Thomas Jefferson DuBose. He told me of taking the call from General Clements McMullen, head of SAC, who was the boss of 8th Air Force Commander Roger Ramey (who was DuBose's boss) ordering him to get the press off their back, send some wreckage up here today, and never talk about it again.
For reasons unknown they had historian Robert Goldberg tell the Roswell tale although he was seriously in error in his description of Roswell in his book about conspiracies and on the show. They gave Karl Pflock quite a bit of time with his Roswell debunking. They blindly accepted the Mogul Balloon explanation even though there is no evidence to support it, the materials characteristics don't match witness testimony, and the dates and locations are wrong. They stressed the high security for Mogul -- vastly overstated since several launches were allowed to just drop in the desert, no chase planes or ground teams. At least the crash test dummies weren't paraded. I have dealt with all the objections in my MUFON 2003 paper "Critiquing the Roswell Critics."
The real promoters on the show were the SETI cultists with their myths. They have no evidence of any kind that there is anybody out there, that there are signals being sent, that they can receive and interpret such signals if there are any, using our primitive technology. An AM radio can't pick up FM signals. They can't admit that there is overwhelming evidence of alien visitation.
It appears that the producers were perfectly willing to present some interesting testimony though they left out things like Project Blue Book Special Report 14, or other large scale scientific studies, and the statement by AF General Carroll Bolender that reports of UFOs which could effect national security were not part of the Blue Book system. But the three areas of investigation that clearly together establish both the cover-up and that the planet is being visited (Roswell and the abductions and the fact that interstellar travel is feasible with reasonable trip times) were trashed. Sounds like when push came to shove they lacked any courage at all. It was nice to give a neat segment at the end of the program to Dr. Michio Kaku saying that maybe visitors are well ahead of us and can warp space and time. Fusion propulsion systems are much closer in time. Blacked out and whited out government UFO documents force one to the conclusion that the government is not just incompetent with Blue Book, but lying through its teeth.
Perhaps I should mention that only 11.6 million people watched the show. The Unsolved Mysteries program on NBC in 1989 about Roswell was seen by over 28 million people the first time around and 30 million the second time.
Particularly irritating was the frequent mention of lights in the sky, billions of stars, and absence of physical evidence. There was not even the slightest mention of Ted Phillips's 3000+ excellent physical trace cases from 90 countries. Why show Chris McKay digging in desert dirt and not the traces left by a UFO?
Frankly, I was also bothered by the proclamations by nasty noisy negativist retired USAF officer James McGaha. We had a full-scale debate in Tennessee. The video is noted at my website www.stantonfriedman.com. It is easy to say we need both sides. But is that true when one does his research by investigation and the other does it by proclamation?
-------
Over the years I have been involved in the making of a number of documentaries about UFOs. These include "UFOs ARE Real," "Flying Saucers ARE Real (2 Vols.)," "Stanton T. Friedman IS Real!," "Do you Believe in MAJIC?" and in numerous interviews for a wide variety of producers of shows that have aired on the History Channel, The Discovery Channel, TLC, etc. Therefore, I am really puzzled about certain aspects of the Peter Jennings Productions UFO special seen on ABC on February 24, 2005. The word is that 150 people were interviewed and only 50 made the cut. That is far more than would be required for a 2-hour special. I had heard just before the broadcast that an interview was done with Harvard psychaitrist Dr. John Mack that would not be used. It surely would have made a good counterweight to the two Harvard psychologists falsely explaining away abductions as sleep paralysis enhanced with hypnosis. It was only after the broadcast that I found out how many extended interviews with very sharp people hadn't been used. Richard Hall, Dr. Richard Haines, Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Bernard Haisch, John Schuessler, John Greenewald, Ted Roe of NARCAP, etc. I saw the people who interviewed Don Schmitt (no air time) and myself (20 seconds, and referring to me as a promoter twice, and calling Roswell a myth at least twice) in Roswell with Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell. None of this is in the PJP show. Crews for PJP travelled a lot including, for example, to the MUFON Conference in Denver. There was no mention of MUFON in the program though CUFOS was given a lot of time with old footage of Dr. J. Allan Hynek as well. Strangely he was portrayed as a courageous loner, the only one standing up to the debunkers -- a totally misleading portrayal. The question thus arises as to why spend at least many hundreds of thousand dollars to collect far more footage than could possibly be used? Perhaps they will do another special using "the good stuff"? I doubt it.
But if one wanted a real state-of-the-art survey of ufology on who knows what, is there a better cover story than that a company linked to Peter Jennings, the last remaining Big Time Network news anchor, is making a hard-hitting 2-hour special? People are flattered to be asked to contribute. Many of us were questioned for more than an hour. It might also be possible when reviewing the tapes to get clues as to who might be speaking out of turn. The crews were very tight about who all they talked to. Is it really surprising that the harshest attacks came down on Roswell, the reality of abductions and the reality of interstellar flight? Glorifying the Silly Effort To Investigate cultists provides a great deal of misdirection away from the reality of UFOs and the government cover-up. The footage would be a feast for the minions of whatever group is taking Majestic 12's place to help plan their strategy for debunking and also for possible future release of data. I suspect they are also collecting reactions to the program. I would really like to collect the names of those who were interviewed but didn't make the cut besides those given above.
Stan Friedman
www.stantonfriedman.com
Stanton T. Friedman
Stanton T. Friedman received BSc and MSc degrees in physics from the University of Chicago in 1955 and 1956. He was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist for such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas on such advanced, classified, eventually cancelled, projects as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and nuclear powerplants for space.
Since 1967 he has lectured on the topic "Flying Saucers ARE Real!" at more than 600 colleges and over 100 professional groups in 50 states, 9 provinces, 13 other countries. He has published more than 80 UFO papers and appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs. He is the original civilian investigator of the Roswell Incident and co-authored "Crash at Corona: The Definitive Study of the Roswell Incident." TOP SECRET/MAJIC, his explosive book about the Majestic 12 group established in 1947 to deal with crashed saucers, was published in 1996 and is in its 6th printing. Stan was presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award in Leeds, England, in September, 2002, by UFO Magazine of the UK. A documentary "Stanton T. Friedman IS Real" was broadcast in Canada in 2002.
He has provided written testimony to Congressional Hearings, appeared twice at the UN, and been a pioneer in many aspects of Ufology including Roswell, Majestic 12, the Betty Hill-Marjorie Fish star map work; analysis of the Delphos, Kansas, physical trace case; crashed saucers, flying saucer technology and challenges to the S.E.T.I. (Silly Effort to Investigate) cultists.
Stanton Friedman takes a clear-cut unambiguous stand that SOME UFOs are alien spacecraft, that the subject of flying saucers represents a Cosmic Watergate, that none of the anti-UFO arguments made by a variety of noisy negativists stand up to careful scrutiny, and that we are dealing with the biggest story of the past millennium: visits to Planet Earth by alien spacecraft and the successful coverup by governments of the best data: alien wreckage and bodies recovered in New Mexico, for 56 years. He has spent many weeks at a total of 20 document archives. Stan has successfully taken on many critics of flying saucers, Roswell, Majestic 12, including winning a debate at Oxford University.
Stanton T. Friedman is a dual citizen of the USA and Canada and lives at 79 Pembroke Crescent, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 2V1.
Phone: 506-457-0232
Fax: 506-450-3832
E-Mail: fsphys@rogers.com
www.stanfriedman.com
Since 1967 he has lectured on the topic "Flying Saucers ARE Real!" at more than 600 colleges and over 100 professional groups in 50 states, 9 provinces, 13 other countries. He has published more than 80 UFO papers and appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs. He is the original civilian investigator of the Roswell Incident and co-authored "Crash at Corona: The Definitive Study of the Roswell Incident." TOP SECRET/MAJIC, his explosive book about the Majestic 12 group established in 1947 to deal with crashed saucers, was published in 1996 and is in its 6th printing. Stan was presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award in Leeds, England, in September, 2002, by UFO Magazine of the UK. A documentary "Stanton T. Friedman IS Real" was broadcast in Canada in 2002.
He has provided written testimony to Congressional Hearings, appeared twice at the UN, and been a pioneer in many aspects of Ufology including Roswell, Majestic 12, the Betty Hill-Marjorie Fish star map work; analysis of the Delphos, Kansas, physical trace case; crashed saucers, flying saucer technology and challenges to the S.E.T.I. (Silly Effort to Investigate) cultists.
Stanton Friedman takes a clear-cut unambiguous stand that SOME UFOs are alien spacecraft, that the subject of flying saucers represents a Cosmic Watergate, that none of the anti-UFO arguments made by a variety of noisy negativists stand up to careful scrutiny, and that we are dealing with the biggest story of the past millennium: visits to Planet Earth by alien spacecraft and the successful coverup by governments of the best data: alien wreckage and bodies recovered in New Mexico, for 56 years. He has spent many weeks at a total of 20 document archives. Stan has successfully taken on many critics of flying saucers, Roswell, Majestic 12, including winning a debate at Oxford University.
Stanton T. Friedman is a dual citizen of the USA and Canada and lives at 79 Pembroke Crescent, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 2V1.
Phone: 506-457-0232
Fax: 506-450-3832
E-Mail: fsphys@rogers.com
www.stanfriedman.com
New Energy Solutions And Implications
New Energy Solutions And Implications
For The National Security And The Environment:
A Brief Overview for the US Senate
Steven M. Greer MD
The ultimate national security issue is intimately linked to the pressing environmental crisis facing the world today: The question of whether humanity can continue as a technologically advanced civilization.
Fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine are non-sustainable both environmentally and economically - and a replacement for both already exists. The question is not whether we will transition to a new post-fossil fuel economy, but when and how. The environmental, economic, geopolitical, national security and military issues related to this matter are profound and inextricably linked to one another.
The disclosure of such new energy technologies will have far-reaching implications for every aspect of human society and the time has come to prepare for such an event. For if such technologies were announced today, it would take at least 10-20 years for their widespread application to be effected. This is approximately how much time we have before global economic chaos begins due to demand far exceeding the supply of oil and environmental decay becomes exponential and catastrophic.
We have found that the technologies to replace fossil fuel usage already exist and need to be exploited and applied immediately to avert a serious global economic, geopolitical and environmental crisis in the not-so-distant future.
In summary, these technologies fall into the following broad categories:
Quantum vacuum/ zero point field energy access systems and related advances in electromagnetic theory and applications
Electrogravitic and magnetogravitic energy and propulsion
Room temperature nuclear effects
Electrochemical and related advances to internal combustion systems which achieve near zero emissions and very high efficiency
A number of practical applications using such technologies have been developed over the past several decades, but such breakthroughs have been either ignored due to their unconventional nature - or have been classified and suppressed due to national security, military interests and ‘special’ interests.
Let us be clear: the question is not whether such systems exist and can be viable replacements for fossil fuels. The question is whether we have the courage to allow such a transformation in world society to occur.
Such technologies - especially those which bypass the need to use an external fuel source such as oil or coal - would have obvious and beneficial effects for humanity. Since these technologies do not require an expensive source of fuel but instead use existing quantum space energy, a revolution in the world’s economic and social order would result. These implications include:
The removal of all sources of air pollution related to energy generation, including electric power plants, cars, trucks, aircraft and manufacturing;
The ability to ‘scrub’ to near zero effluent all manufacturing processes since the energy per se required for same would have no cost related to fuel consumption. This would allow the full application of technologies which remove effluent from smokestacks, solid waste and waterways since current applications are generally restricted by their energy costs and the fact that such energy consumption - being fossil fuel based - soon reaches the point of diminishing returns environmentally.
The practical achievement of an environmentally near-zero impact yet high tech civilization on earth, thus assuring the long-term sustainability of human civilization.
Trillions of dollars now spent on electric power generation, gas, oil, coal and nuclear power would be freed to be spent on more productive and environmentally neutral endeavors by both individuals and society as a whole.
Underdeveloped regions of the Earth would be lifted out of poverty and into a high technology world in about a generation - but without the associated infrastructure costs and environmental impact related to traditional energy generation and propulsion. Since these new systems generate energy from the ambient quantum energy state, trillion dollar infrastructure investments in centralized power generation and distribution would be eliminated. Remote villages and towns would have the ability to generate energy for manufacturing, electrification, water purification, etc. without purchasing fuels or building massive transmission lines and central power grids.
Near total recycling of resources and materials would be possible since the energy costs for doing so - now the main obstacle - would be brought down to a trivial level.
The vast disparity between rich and poor nations would quickly disappear - and with it much of the zero-sum-game mentality which is at the root of so much social, political and international unrest. In a world of abundant and inexpensive energy, many of the pressures, which have led to a cycle of poverty, exploitation, resentment and violence would be removed from the social dynamic. While ideological, cultural and religious differences would persist, the raw economic disparity and struggle would be removed from the equation fairly quickly.
Surface roads- and therefore most road building - will be unnecessary as Electrogravitic/ antigravity energy and propulsion systems replace current surface transportation systems.
The world economy would expand dramatically and those advanced economies such as in the US and Europe would benefit tremendously as global trade, development and high technology energy and propulsion devices are demanded around the world. Such a global energy revolution would create an expanding world economy which would make the current computer and Internet economy look like a rounding error. This really would be the tide which would lift all ships.
Long term, society would evolve to a psychology of abundance, which would redound to the benefit of humanity as a whole, a peaceful civilization and a society focused increasingly on creative pursuits rather than destructive and violent endeavors.
Lest all of this sound like a pipe-dream, keep in mind that such technological advances are not only possible, but they already exist. What is lacking is the collective will, creativity and courage to see that they are applied wisely. And therein lies the problem.
As an emergency and trauma doctor, I know that everything can be used for good or for ill. A knife can butter your bread - or cut your throat. Every technology can have beneficial as well as harmful applications.
The latter partially explains the serious national security and military concerns with such technologies. For many decades, these advances in energy and propulsion technologies have been acquired, suppressed and classified by certain interests who have viewed them as a threat to our security from both an economic and military perspective. In the short term, these concerns have been well-founded: Why rock the global economic boat by allowing technologies out which would, effectively, terminate the multi-trillion dollar oil, gas, coal, internal combustion engine and related transportation sectors of the economy? And which could also unleash such technologies on an unstable and dangerous world where the weapons applications for such technological breakthroughs would be a certainty? In the light of this, the status quo looks good.
But only for the short term. In fact, such national security and military policies - fed by huge special interests in obvious industries and nations - have exacerbated global geopolitical tensions by impoverishing much of the world, worsening the zero-sum-game mind set of the rich vs. poor nations and brought us to a world energy emergency and a pending environmental crisis. And now we have very little time to fix the situation. Such thinking must be relegated to the past.
For what can be a greater threat to the national security than the specter of a collapse of our entire civilization from a lack of energy and global chaos as every nation fights for its share of a limited resource? Due to the long lead time needed to transform the current industrial infrastructure away from fossil fuels, we are facing a national security emergency which almost nobody is talking about. This is dangerous.
It has also created a serious constitutional crisis in the US and other countries where non-representative entities and super-secret projects within compartmented military and corporate areas have begun to set national and international policy on this and related matters - all outside the arena of public debate, and mostly without informed consent from Congress or the President.
Indeed this crisis is undermining democracy in the US and elsewhere. I have had the unenviable task of personally briefing senior political, military, and intelligence officials in the US and Europe on this and related matters. These officials have been denied access to information compartmented within certain projects, which are, frankly, unacknowledged areas (so-called ‘black’ projects). Such officials include members of the House and Senate, President Clinton’s first Director of Central Intelligence, the head of the DIA, senior Joint Staff officials and others. Usually, the officials have little to no information on such projects and technologies - and are told either nothing or that they do not have a ‘need to know’ if they specifically inquire.
This presents then another problem: these technologies will not be suppressed forever. For example, our group is planning a near term disclosure of such technologies and we will not be silenced. At the time of such a disclosure, will the US government be prepared? It would behoove the US government and others to be informed and have a plan for transitioning our society from fossil fuels to these new energy and propulsion systems.
Indeed, the great danger is ignorance by our leaders of these scientific breakthroughs - and ignorance of how to manage their disclosure. The advanced countries of the world must be prepared to put systems in place to assure the exclusive peaceful use of such energy and propulsion advances. Economic and industrial interests should be prepared so that those aspects of our economy which will be adversely affected (commodities, oil, gas, coal, public utilities, engine manufacturing, etc) can be cushioned from sudden reversals and be economically ‘hedged’ by investing in and supporting the new energy infrastructure.
A creative view of the future - not fear and suppression of such technologies - is required. And it is needed immediately. If we wait 10-20 more years, it will be too late to make the needed changes before world oil shortages, exorbitant costs and geopolitical competition for resources causes a melt-down in the world’s economy and political structures.
All systems tend towards homeostasis. The status quo is comfortable and secure. Change is frightening. But in this case, the most dangerous course for the national security is inaction. We must be prepared for the coming convulsions related to energy shortages, spiraling costs and economic disruption. The best preparation would be a replacement for oil and related fossil fuels. And we have it. But disclosing these new energy systems carries its own set of benefits, risks and challenges. The US government and the Congress must be prepared to wisely manage this great challenge.
Recommendations for Congress:
Thoroughly investigate these new technologies both from current civilian sources as well as compartmented projects within military, intelligence and corporate contracting areas;
Authorize the declassification and release of information held within compartmented projects related to this subject;
Specifically prohibit the seizing or suppression of such technologies
Authorize substantial funding for basic research and development by civilian scientists and technologists into these areas;
Develop plans for dealing with disclosing such technologies and for the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy. These plans should include: military and national security planning; strategic economic planning and preparation; private sector support and cooperation; geopolitical planning, especially as it pertains to OPEC countries and regions whose economies are very dependent on oil exports and the price of oil; international cooperation and security; among others.
I personally stand ready to assist the Congress in any way possible to facilitate our use of these new energy sources. Having dealt with this and related sensitive matters for over 10 years, I can recommend a number of individuals who can be subpoenaed to provide testimony on such technologies, as well as people who have information on unacknowledged special access projects within covert government operations which are already dealing with these issues.
If we face these challenges with courage and with wisdom together, we can secure for our children a new and sustainable world, free of poverty and environmental destruction. We will be up to this challenge, because we must be.
For The National Security And The Environment:
A Brief Overview for the US Senate
Steven M. Greer MD
The ultimate national security issue is intimately linked to the pressing environmental crisis facing the world today: The question of whether humanity can continue as a technologically advanced civilization.
Fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine are non-sustainable both environmentally and economically - and a replacement for both already exists. The question is not whether we will transition to a new post-fossil fuel economy, but when and how. The environmental, economic, geopolitical, national security and military issues related to this matter are profound and inextricably linked to one another.
The disclosure of such new energy technologies will have far-reaching implications for every aspect of human society and the time has come to prepare for such an event. For if such technologies were announced today, it would take at least 10-20 years for their widespread application to be effected. This is approximately how much time we have before global economic chaos begins due to demand far exceeding the supply of oil and environmental decay becomes exponential and catastrophic.
We have found that the technologies to replace fossil fuel usage already exist and need to be exploited and applied immediately to avert a serious global economic, geopolitical and environmental crisis in the not-so-distant future.
In summary, these technologies fall into the following broad categories:
Quantum vacuum/ zero point field energy access systems and related advances in electromagnetic theory and applications
Electrogravitic and magnetogravitic energy and propulsion
Room temperature nuclear effects
Electrochemical and related advances to internal combustion systems which achieve near zero emissions and very high efficiency
A number of practical applications using such technologies have been developed over the past several decades, but such breakthroughs have been either ignored due to their unconventional nature - or have been classified and suppressed due to national security, military interests and ‘special’ interests.
Let us be clear: the question is not whether such systems exist and can be viable replacements for fossil fuels. The question is whether we have the courage to allow such a transformation in world society to occur.
Such technologies - especially those which bypass the need to use an external fuel source such as oil or coal - would have obvious and beneficial effects for humanity. Since these technologies do not require an expensive source of fuel but instead use existing quantum space energy, a revolution in the world’s economic and social order would result. These implications include:
The removal of all sources of air pollution related to energy generation, including electric power plants, cars, trucks, aircraft and manufacturing;
The ability to ‘scrub’ to near zero effluent all manufacturing processes since the energy per se required for same would have no cost related to fuel consumption. This would allow the full application of technologies which remove effluent from smokestacks, solid waste and waterways since current applications are generally restricted by their energy costs and the fact that such energy consumption - being fossil fuel based - soon reaches the point of diminishing returns environmentally.
The practical achievement of an environmentally near-zero impact yet high tech civilization on earth, thus assuring the long-term sustainability of human civilization.
Trillions of dollars now spent on electric power generation, gas, oil, coal and nuclear power would be freed to be spent on more productive and environmentally neutral endeavors by both individuals and society as a whole.
Underdeveloped regions of the Earth would be lifted out of poverty and into a high technology world in about a generation - but without the associated infrastructure costs and environmental impact related to traditional energy generation and propulsion. Since these new systems generate energy from the ambient quantum energy state, trillion dollar infrastructure investments in centralized power generation and distribution would be eliminated. Remote villages and towns would have the ability to generate energy for manufacturing, electrification, water purification, etc. without purchasing fuels or building massive transmission lines and central power grids.
Near total recycling of resources and materials would be possible since the energy costs for doing so - now the main obstacle - would be brought down to a trivial level.
The vast disparity between rich and poor nations would quickly disappear - and with it much of the zero-sum-game mentality which is at the root of so much social, political and international unrest. In a world of abundant and inexpensive energy, many of the pressures, which have led to a cycle of poverty, exploitation, resentment and violence would be removed from the social dynamic. While ideological, cultural and religious differences would persist, the raw economic disparity and struggle would be removed from the equation fairly quickly.
Surface roads- and therefore most road building - will be unnecessary as Electrogravitic/ antigravity energy and propulsion systems replace current surface transportation systems.
The world economy would expand dramatically and those advanced economies such as in the US and Europe would benefit tremendously as global trade, development and high technology energy and propulsion devices are demanded around the world. Such a global energy revolution would create an expanding world economy which would make the current computer and Internet economy look like a rounding error. This really would be the tide which would lift all ships.
Long term, society would evolve to a psychology of abundance, which would redound to the benefit of humanity as a whole, a peaceful civilization and a society focused increasingly on creative pursuits rather than destructive and violent endeavors.
Lest all of this sound like a pipe-dream, keep in mind that such technological advances are not only possible, but they already exist. What is lacking is the collective will, creativity and courage to see that they are applied wisely. And therein lies the problem.
As an emergency and trauma doctor, I know that everything can be used for good or for ill. A knife can butter your bread - or cut your throat. Every technology can have beneficial as well as harmful applications.
The latter partially explains the serious national security and military concerns with such technologies. For many decades, these advances in energy and propulsion technologies have been acquired, suppressed and classified by certain interests who have viewed them as a threat to our security from both an economic and military perspective. In the short term, these concerns have been well-founded: Why rock the global economic boat by allowing technologies out which would, effectively, terminate the multi-trillion dollar oil, gas, coal, internal combustion engine and related transportation sectors of the economy? And which could also unleash such technologies on an unstable and dangerous world where the weapons applications for such technological breakthroughs would be a certainty? In the light of this, the status quo looks good.
But only for the short term. In fact, such national security and military policies - fed by huge special interests in obvious industries and nations - have exacerbated global geopolitical tensions by impoverishing much of the world, worsening the zero-sum-game mind set of the rich vs. poor nations and brought us to a world energy emergency and a pending environmental crisis. And now we have very little time to fix the situation. Such thinking must be relegated to the past.
For what can be a greater threat to the national security than the specter of a collapse of our entire civilization from a lack of energy and global chaos as every nation fights for its share of a limited resource? Due to the long lead time needed to transform the current industrial infrastructure away from fossil fuels, we are facing a national security emergency which almost nobody is talking about. This is dangerous.
It has also created a serious constitutional crisis in the US and other countries where non-representative entities and super-secret projects within compartmented military and corporate areas have begun to set national and international policy on this and related matters - all outside the arena of public debate, and mostly without informed consent from Congress or the President.
Indeed this crisis is undermining democracy in the US and elsewhere. I have had the unenviable task of personally briefing senior political, military, and intelligence officials in the US and Europe on this and related matters. These officials have been denied access to information compartmented within certain projects, which are, frankly, unacknowledged areas (so-called ‘black’ projects). Such officials include members of the House and Senate, President Clinton’s first Director of Central Intelligence, the head of the DIA, senior Joint Staff officials and others. Usually, the officials have little to no information on such projects and technologies - and are told either nothing or that they do not have a ‘need to know’ if they specifically inquire.
This presents then another problem: these technologies will not be suppressed forever. For example, our group is planning a near term disclosure of such technologies and we will not be silenced. At the time of such a disclosure, will the US government be prepared? It would behoove the US government and others to be informed and have a plan for transitioning our society from fossil fuels to these new energy and propulsion systems.
Indeed, the great danger is ignorance by our leaders of these scientific breakthroughs - and ignorance of how to manage their disclosure. The advanced countries of the world must be prepared to put systems in place to assure the exclusive peaceful use of such energy and propulsion advances. Economic and industrial interests should be prepared so that those aspects of our economy which will be adversely affected (commodities, oil, gas, coal, public utilities, engine manufacturing, etc) can be cushioned from sudden reversals and be economically ‘hedged’ by investing in and supporting the new energy infrastructure.
A creative view of the future - not fear and suppression of such technologies - is required. And it is needed immediately. If we wait 10-20 more years, it will be too late to make the needed changes before world oil shortages, exorbitant costs and geopolitical competition for resources causes a melt-down in the world’s economy and political structures.
All systems tend towards homeostasis. The status quo is comfortable and secure. Change is frightening. But in this case, the most dangerous course for the national security is inaction. We must be prepared for the coming convulsions related to energy shortages, spiraling costs and economic disruption. The best preparation would be a replacement for oil and related fossil fuels. And we have it. But disclosing these new energy systems carries its own set of benefits, risks and challenges. The US government and the Congress must be prepared to wisely manage this great challenge.
Recommendations for Congress:
Thoroughly investigate these new technologies both from current civilian sources as well as compartmented projects within military, intelligence and corporate contracting areas;
Authorize the declassification and release of information held within compartmented projects related to this subject;
Specifically prohibit the seizing or suppression of such technologies
Authorize substantial funding for basic research and development by civilian scientists and technologists into these areas;
Develop plans for dealing with disclosing such technologies and for the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy. These plans should include: military and national security planning; strategic economic planning and preparation; private sector support and cooperation; geopolitical planning, especially as it pertains to OPEC countries and regions whose economies are very dependent on oil exports and the price of oil; international cooperation and security; among others.
I personally stand ready to assist the Congress in any way possible to facilitate our use of these new energy sources. Having dealt with this and related sensitive matters for over 10 years, I can recommend a number of individuals who can be subpoenaed to provide testimony on such technologies, as well as people who have information on unacknowledged special access projects within covert government operations which are already dealing with these issues.
If we face these challenges with courage and with wisdom together, we can secure for our children a new and sustainable world, free of poverty and environmental destruction. We will be up to this challenge, because we must be.
The Disclosure Cookbook, Stephen Basset
Stephen Bassett, November 1, 2000
Summary: It is the question most often asked. ?How will it happen?? A more important question is, ?How should it happen?? Both deserve an answer. Putting optimism aside for a moment, our first recipe serves up an order of ?will.?
Abbie Hoffman would have titled it, "Disclose this Book"
Washington, DC ? It is the question most often asked. ?How will it happen?? A more important question is, ?How should it happen?? Both deserve an answer. Putting optimism aside for a moment, our first recipe serves up an order of ?will.?
It will be bi-partisan. The predominant party affiliation of career military, intelligence, corporate defense contractor and NASA personnel is Republican. But for the select few in command and control of the UFO/ET agenda, a political party biased disclosure process would be both dangerous and transparent. It would directly threaten the civilian control of the military and call into question the patriotism of line officers and managers, who, in most cases, would be learning of this new reality at the same time as the general public.
It will happen early in the administration of the new president. While a second term scenario would be preferable to the party in power, a first term will do if circumstances require it, and they do. The nation, and this projection is confined to the nation, will need as much time as possible to digest the disclosed information prior to reentering the next presidential election cycle. The mid-term election is not a factor.
Preliminary briefings directed at the Democratic and Republican candidates will begin during the campaigns. They will be done with great care and not without some risk. Any of the four candidates might choose to go public based upon personal ethics. However, this risk is small as the arguments for keeping the subject from exploding into the middle of an ongoing election will be persuasive.
This strategy to inform both aspiring presidents and vice-presidents ?before? the election outcome is the ultimate act of bipartisanship. By this act the military/intelligence agencies place themselves outside of politics for the coming process, as either party might win ? a very close election would serve to accentuate this neutrality.
These briefing will be logistically difficult. Any leak to third parties would portend chaos. So they will be direct, avoid any electronic transmission, and will take place as close to the source as possible. Think campaign airplanes sitting on runways in the right airports.
After the election is over, briefing of the new president will continue during the transition period. This is ideal as this period is nothing but meetings which can be held anywhere in the country. Once a president enters the White House, the issue is formally enjoined and the logistics change dramatically.
And from where will this information and people to transmit it emerge? There are many possible vehicles. It will be a national security focused and somewhat ecumenical, cross agency entity. It will likely be in the control of the CIA because this agency has the cleanest hands and whitest hats (surprised?). It is also the symbol of national security intelligence to a general public largely ignorant of the myriad of other extant agencies conducting intelligence.
A possible candidate would be the National Intelligence Council.
The National Intelligence Council, managed by a Chairman and a Vice Chairman, is comprised of National Intelligence Officers--senior experts drawn from all elements of the Community and from outside the Government. The National Intelligence Officers concentrate on the substantive problems of particular geographic regions of the world and of particular functional areas such as economics and weapons proliferation. They serve the DCI in his role as leader of the Intelligence Community by providing a center for mid-term and long-term strategic thinking and production. Through routine close contact with policymakers, collection, research, and community analysis, the NIC provides the DCI with the information he needs to assist policymakers as they pursue shifting interests and foreign policy priorities. The NIC also draws on nongovernmental experts in academia and the private sector to bring in fresh perspectives and analytic methods to enhance the intelligence process. Finally, the NIC assists the Intelligence Community by evaluating the adequacy of intelligence support and works with the Community's functional managers to refine strategies to meet the most crucial needs of our senior consumers.
From the CIA Website at: www.odci.gov/ic/nic.html
Selected individuals from any segment of the nation?s infrastructure (with high security clearance being a likely qualifier) could be brought in and engaged on the subject within the confines of such an entity. From these meetings would come the specific content of the pre- an post-election briefings.
The Disclosure Event
If Washington, DC was a cruise ship it would sink in half an hour. Here, leaking information has been perfected to a fine art. There will be an enormous challenge facing the White House as it formulates the disclosure event itself. Given that our nation, in its wisdom, has chosen to permit several hundred media members to operate inside the West Wing of the White House on a daily basis, maintaining the integrity of the process will be extraordinarily difficult.
For that reason alone, things will happen quickly. The disclosure event will take place within a few weeks or months of taking office. What form will it take?
There will be considerable internal debate over two approaches: 1) the classic presidential address to the nation, and 2) the mega press conference modeled after the NASA Mars life event of 1997. Both will be used with the emphasis on the second - a brief announcement from the White House immediately followed by what will be the largest and longest press conference in the nation?s history.
The concerns here are these: 1) a presidential address to the nation alone would be too ominous and would not permit immediate broad based questions from the press, 2) a presidential press conference would be too political and would also not permit extensive broad based questions with answers from experts in each aspect of the matter at hand. The public is going to want information and a lot of it, and they are going to want it immediately.
The President, who is both the leader of the nation and the leader of a political party, will open the event which then will shift location to a press conference with several dozen participants. The usual suspects will have been rounded up. A likely cast would include: Senate/House majority/minority leaders, the CIA Director, the Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs and possibly the Joint Chiefs (an important tactical decision which will be affected by the content), the NASA administrator, a half-dozen scientific specialists (biology, exo-biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology/astrophysics, propulsion engineering, etc.), two or three well-know religious leaders, and three to five social/political community leaders (there will be gender and ethnic diversity).
And, yes, Carl Sagan addressed this structure in Contact. That was a novel.
A spokesperson will be selected to present the basic statement of facts. That statement will define the rules of engagement and the boundaries. It will be made clear that some information will for the time being remain classified. The amount and nature of that information will be the most important tactical decision of the disclosure team and will be the first indication of the direction the process is going.
The press conference will, of course, be universally broadcast. And while it will be broadcast around the world, it will be a national event with an American focus.
It will begin at mid-morning and will still be going on late into the evening. Members of the panel will take breaks from time to time, but the press conference will go on uninterrupted until the fatigue of all participants, press and panel, will bring it to an end.
The Paradigm Clock at www.paradigmclock.com will be set to midnight.
Within a week, the Congress will begin a series of fact finding hearings on the UFO/ET subject matter and related issues which will go on for several years.
Note: Knowledgeable readers will be wondering, ?what happened to open congressional hearings before and forcing the disclosure event?? Good question. The people who run the United States government are, contrary to the opinion of some, not stupid. This includes the UFO/ET management team. They are sufficiently wise to know they do not want to be forced into a disclosure event by congressional hearings. If they do not act, those hearings are going to take place. So they will act.
What should happen
While the disclosure event will certainly reflect the reality of human foibles and the imperfection in this world, if ever there was a time to rise above the behavioral status quo, this will be it.
First and foremost, it has to be the truth. If leaking is an art form in Washington, lying is a science. Some individuals at the initial disclosure event and in the subsequent hearings will lie and they will regret it. The level of complexity of this subject matter and the degree of scrutiny to which it will be subjected will make lying to serve ulterior agendas a risky and foolish choice.
It needs to be global. Logistics will likely prevent a proper globalization of this event in which the United Nations and a host of other countries are direct participants at the outset. In a world in which national and religious divisions are often close cousins, a strong association between the extraterrestrial presence and one country or one religion is not desirable.
It needs to incorporate the UFO/ET research community. The temptation to shut out the thousands of people worldwide who have pressed for the truth in this matter for 50 years will be great. They serve as constant reminders of certain institutional failures. Whether in or out, they are not going away.
Truth, global cooperation, inclusivity - these are virtues of the new paradigm. What better time to embrace them then the event that ushers in that new world?
Summary: It is the question most often asked. ?How will it happen?? A more important question is, ?How should it happen?? Both deserve an answer. Putting optimism aside for a moment, our first recipe serves up an order of ?will.?
Abbie Hoffman would have titled it, "Disclose this Book"
Washington, DC ? It is the question most often asked. ?How will it happen?? A more important question is, ?How should it happen?? Both deserve an answer. Putting optimism aside for a moment, our first recipe serves up an order of ?will.?
It will be bi-partisan. The predominant party affiliation of career military, intelligence, corporate defense contractor and NASA personnel is Republican. But for the select few in command and control of the UFO/ET agenda, a political party biased disclosure process would be both dangerous and transparent. It would directly threaten the civilian control of the military and call into question the patriotism of line officers and managers, who, in most cases, would be learning of this new reality at the same time as the general public.
It will happen early in the administration of the new president. While a second term scenario would be preferable to the party in power, a first term will do if circumstances require it, and they do. The nation, and this projection is confined to the nation, will need as much time as possible to digest the disclosed information prior to reentering the next presidential election cycle. The mid-term election is not a factor.
Preliminary briefings directed at the Democratic and Republican candidates will begin during the campaigns. They will be done with great care and not without some risk. Any of the four candidates might choose to go public based upon personal ethics. However, this risk is small as the arguments for keeping the subject from exploding into the middle of an ongoing election will be persuasive.
This strategy to inform both aspiring presidents and vice-presidents ?before? the election outcome is the ultimate act of bipartisanship. By this act the military/intelligence agencies place themselves outside of politics for the coming process, as either party might win ? a very close election would serve to accentuate this neutrality.
These briefing will be logistically difficult. Any leak to third parties would portend chaos. So they will be direct, avoid any electronic transmission, and will take place as close to the source as possible. Think campaign airplanes sitting on runways in the right airports.
After the election is over, briefing of the new president will continue during the transition period. This is ideal as this period is nothing but meetings which can be held anywhere in the country. Once a president enters the White House, the issue is formally enjoined and the logistics change dramatically.
And from where will this information and people to transmit it emerge? There are many possible vehicles. It will be a national security focused and somewhat ecumenical, cross agency entity. It will likely be in the control of the CIA because this agency has the cleanest hands and whitest hats (surprised?). It is also the symbol of national security intelligence to a general public largely ignorant of the myriad of other extant agencies conducting intelligence.
A possible candidate would be the National Intelligence Council.
The National Intelligence Council, managed by a Chairman and a Vice Chairman, is comprised of National Intelligence Officers--senior experts drawn from all elements of the Community and from outside the Government. The National Intelligence Officers concentrate on the substantive problems of particular geographic regions of the world and of particular functional areas such as economics and weapons proliferation. They serve the DCI in his role as leader of the Intelligence Community by providing a center for mid-term and long-term strategic thinking and production. Through routine close contact with policymakers, collection, research, and community analysis, the NIC provides the DCI with the information he needs to assist policymakers as they pursue shifting interests and foreign policy priorities. The NIC also draws on nongovernmental experts in academia and the private sector to bring in fresh perspectives and analytic methods to enhance the intelligence process. Finally, the NIC assists the Intelligence Community by evaluating the adequacy of intelligence support and works with the Community's functional managers to refine strategies to meet the most crucial needs of our senior consumers.
From the CIA Website at: www.odci.gov/ic/nic.html
Selected individuals from any segment of the nation?s infrastructure (with high security clearance being a likely qualifier) could be brought in and engaged on the subject within the confines of such an entity. From these meetings would come the specific content of the pre- an post-election briefings.
The Disclosure Event
If Washington, DC was a cruise ship it would sink in half an hour. Here, leaking information has been perfected to a fine art. There will be an enormous challenge facing the White House as it formulates the disclosure event itself. Given that our nation, in its wisdom, has chosen to permit several hundred media members to operate inside the West Wing of the White House on a daily basis, maintaining the integrity of the process will be extraordinarily difficult.
For that reason alone, things will happen quickly. The disclosure event will take place within a few weeks or months of taking office. What form will it take?
There will be considerable internal debate over two approaches: 1) the classic presidential address to the nation, and 2) the mega press conference modeled after the NASA Mars life event of 1997. Both will be used with the emphasis on the second - a brief announcement from the White House immediately followed by what will be the largest and longest press conference in the nation?s history.
The concerns here are these: 1) a presidential address to the nation alone would be too ominous and would not permit immediate broad based questions from the press, 2) a presidential press conference would be too political and would also not permit extensive broad based questions with answers from experts in each aspect of the matter at hand. The public is going to want information and a lot of it, and they are going to want it immediately.
The President, who is both the leader of the nation and the leader of a political party, will open the event which then will shift location to a press conference with several dozen participants. The usual suspects will have been rounded up. A likely cast would include: Senate/House majority/minority leaders, the CIA Director, the Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs and possibly the Joint Chiefs (an important tactical decision which will be affected by the content), the NASA administrator, a half-dozen scientific specialists (biology, exo-biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology/astrophysics, propulsion engineering, etc.), two or three well-know religious leaders, and three to five social/political community leaders (there will be gender and ethnic diversity).
And, yes, Carl Sagan addressed this structure in Contact. That was a novel.
A spokesperson will be selected to present the basic statement of facts. That statement will define the rules of engagement and the boundaries. It will be made clear that some information will for the time being remain classified. The amount and nature of that information will be the most important tactical decision of the disclosure team and will be the first indication of the direction the process is going.
The press conference will, of course, be universally broadcast. And while it will be broadcast around the world, it will be a national event with an American focus.
It will begin at mid-morning and will still be going on late into the evening. Members of the panel will take breaks from time to time, but the press conference will go on uninterrupted until the fatigue of all participants, press and panel, will bring it to an end.
The Paradigm Clock at www.paradigmclock.com will be set to midnight.
Within a week, the Congress will begin a series of fact finding hearings on the UFO/ET subject matter and related issues which will go on for several years.
Note: Knowledgeable readers will be wondering, ?what happened to open congressional hearings before and forcing the disclosure event?? Good question. The people who run the United States government are, contrary to the opinion of some, not stupid. This includes the UFO/ET management team. They are sufficiently wise to know they do not want to be forced into a disclosure event by congressional hearings. If they do not act, those hearings are going to take place. So they will act.
What should happen
While the disclosure event will certainly reflect the reality of human foibles and the imperfection in this world, if ever there was a time to rise above the behavioral status quo, this will be it.
First and foremost, it has to be the truth. If leaking is an art form in Washington, lying is a science. Some individuals at the initial disclosure event and in the subsequent hearings will lie and they will regret it. The level of complexity of this subject matter and the degree of scrutiny to which it will be subjected will make lying to serve ulterior agendas a risky and foolish choice.
It needs to be global. Logistics will likely prevent a proper globalization of this event in which the United Nations and a host of other countries are direct participants at the outset. In a world in which national and religious divisions are often close cousins, a strong association between the extraterrestrial presence and one country or one religion is not desirable.
It needs to incorporate the UFO/ET research community. The temptation to shut out the thousands of people worldwide who have pressed for the truth in this matter for 50 years will be great. They serve as constant reminders of certain institutional failures. Whether in or out, they are not going away.
Truth, global cooperation, inclusivity - these are virtues of the new paradigm. What better time to embrace them then the event that ushers in that new world?
X-Conference II 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Paradigm Research Group is pleased to announce the 2nd Annual Exopolitics Expo (X-Conference), scheduled for April 22-24, 2005 at the Hilton Washington, DC North/Gaithersburg, has begun assembling the speaker lineup for 2005. The X-Conference is a unique event which focuses on the political, governmental and social aspects relating to extraterrestrial-related phenomena. It is more than a public conference - it is part of the disclosure process itself. As was the case last year, all Congressional offices will be notified and Members or staff encouraged to take advantage of this convenient opportunity to become informed on an issue about which they have been misinformed for over five decades.
Conference co-moderator and executive producer Stephen Bassett.
Executive Producer/Speaker/Host is a political activist, founder of Paradigm Research Group, Executive Director of the Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee (X-PPAC, pronounced expack), author of the Paradigm Clock website, and a political columnist, commentator and former Independent candidate for Congress. He is the executive producer of the X-Conference.
Presently he is the only registered lobbyist in the United States representing extraterrestrial related phenomena research/activist organizations, and X-PPAC is the first political action committee to target the political implications of extraterrestrial related phenomena. Between April 19 and November 5 of 2002 he conducted an independent candidacy in the 2002 congressional campaign in the 8th District of Maryland. It was the first instance in which a candidate on the November ballot in a federal election openly addressed the matter of an extraterrestrial presence and the government imposed truth embargo.
On January 13 of 2003 he launched a new project, Citizen Hearing, which intends to conduct a week-long hearing in Washington, DC before former Members of the House and Senate. The motto for this project is, "If Congress will not do its job, the people will."
Since 1996 Bassett has assisted a number of organizations and initiatives, which have been making the case for 1) an end to the government embargo on the truth surrounding an extraterrestrial presence and 2) open congressional hearings to take the testimony of former military and agency employees witness to extraterrestrial related events and evidence. He has spoken to millions of Americans about the likelihood and implications of a formal disclosure event.
Special Presentation
Principal Websites
Paradigm Research Group: www.paradigmclock.com
X-PPAC: www.x-ppac.org
X-Conference: www.x-conference.com
Citizen Hearing: www.citizenhearing.org
Disclosure2003: www.disclosure2003.net
Lynne Kitei, MD - is an internationally acclaimed physician and health educator, a leader in early disease detection and prevention and Chief Clinical Consultant at the world-renowned Arizona Heart Institute's Imaging/Prevention/Wellness Center in Phoenix, Arizona. This highly accomplished professional is presenting at the X-Conference because she is a key witness to the still-unexplained mass sighting that took place throughout Arizona on March 13, 1997 - the "Phoenix Lights." After years of private research Lynne has "come out" to talk about the challenges facing high level professionals who wish to address any aspect of extraterrestrial-related phenomena as well as the inadequate media and government response to this extraordinary event. Dr. Kitei has been recognized in the Who's Who of American Women, was chosen as the Woman of the Year in Pennsylvania, and has been featured for her innovative and ground-breaking work in publications such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, TV Guide magazine, Runner magazine, Phoenix magazine, and Physician's Management magazine. She is an award winning producer, writer and director of health-related documentary films and was called the "woman pioneer of medical communications" in TV Guide after creating and producing innovative TV news health reports for NBC in Philadelphia in 1976. She has dedicated over 25 years to global public awareness, wellness, and health education. Her AIDS, Substance Abuse and Teen Pregnancy programs have won the Telly Bronze Award in 1995, the National Education Film & Video Festival Silver Apple Award in 1994, the New York International Film Festival Finalist Award in 1992 and 1993, the Chicago International Film Festival Silver Hugo and Finalist Awards in 1993, the Columbus International Film & Video Festival Honorable Mention Award in 1991, and the Arizona Hemmy Award in 1993 and 1994. Dr. Kitei receive her BS in Secondary Science Education from Temple University and an M.D. from the Temple University School of Medicine.
Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd - a futurist, peace advocate and environmental activist, is the father of Exopolitics. When "exopolitics" is formally (academically) recognized as the term describing the political and social intersection of the human race with extraterrestrial-related phenomena and ultimately extraterrestrial beings, the primary origin of this enormously important nomenclature will be attributed to Alfred Lambremont Webre. Michael Salla subsequently worked to expand and develop content within the intellectual framework, and Stephen Bassett worked to bring this framework and terminology to a larger audience. Dr. Webre is International Director of the Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS); a founder of the No Weapons in Space Campaign (NOWIS), a Canadian coalition to prevent the weaponization of space; and coordinates the Campaign for Cooperation in Space. He is a co-architect of the Space Preservation Act and the Space Preservation Treaty to ban space-based weapons. He is also an on-air host on Vancouver Coop Radio CFRO 102.7 FM. Webre is a former Fulbright Scholar and graduate of Yale University, Yale Law School (Yale Law School National Scholar), and the University of Texas Counseling Program. He was General Counsel to the NYC Environmental Protection Administration and environmental consultant to the Ford Foundation, futurist at Stanford Research Institute, and author. He taught economics at Yale University (Economics Department) and Civil Liberties at the University of Texas (Government Department). Alfred has been a delegate to the UNISPACE Outer Space Conference and NGO representative at the United Nations (Communications Coordination Committee for the UN; UN Second Special Session on Disarmament); elected Clinton-Gore Delegate to the 1996 Texas Democratic Convention; and a Member, Governor's Emergency Taskforce on Earthquake Preparedness, State of California (1980-82), appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Mr. Webre produced and hosted the Instant of Cooperation, the first live radio broadcast between USA and the then Soviet Union, carried live by Gosteleradio and NPR satellite in 1987. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar. Webre's new book EXOPOLITICS, POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN THE UNIVERSE (Universebooks 2005) will be launched at this Conference.
Paul Davids is a leading expert on the history of the Hollywood connection to science fiction and extraterrestrial-related phenomena. He was executive producer and co-writer of the Showtime film “Roswell,” starring Martin Sheen and Kyle MacLachlan, nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Television Motion Picture of 1994. Though always interested in science-fiction, the UFO issue is a matter of science fact for him, ever since a widely reported 1987 daylight sighting. In 1996 he was guest speaker at the banquet for the 50th anniversary of the White Sands Missile Range Pioneers, where he spoke about The Roswell Incident, and he has produced numerous informational programs about UFO’s. Paul earned a B.A. from Princeton University, where he won the university's three top creative writing awards all in one year (including the F. Scott Fitzgerald Prize), and afterwards he studied under full scholarship at the American Film Institute Center for Advanced Film Studies in Los Angeles.
Bruce Maccabee, PhD
[Breaking News: The January/February 2005 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS) published an article titled Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation. Dr. Deardorff was the lead author along with Bernard Haisch, Bruce Maccabee and Hal Puthoff. The paper reassessed the ETH in light of the new physics and included references to the posture and actions of the U.S. Air Force. It is an important event, and PRG is pleased that two of the paper's authors (Deardorff and Maccabee) will present on the implications of their findings. It is notable a Space.com article, ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood, Jan 14, 2005 by Leonard David, received millions of hits after the article was a top-story link at the Drudge Report website for several days.
PRG encourages all attendees to download or read this paper on line prior to coming to the X-Conference. This will allow Drs. Deardorff and Maccabee to speak to the larger implications of their paper as opposed to just restating the findings. [Download .pdf file here. See file on line at: www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf ]
Dr. Maccabee spent his early years in Rutland, Vt. After high school he studied physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, Mass (BS) and then at The American University, Washington, DC (MS, PhD, physics). In 1972 he commenced his long career at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, presently headquartered at Dahlgren, Virginia. He has worked on optical data processing, generation of underwater sound with lasers, various aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) using high power lasers and is presently involved in a program related to Homeland Security. Bruce Maccabee has been active in UFO research since late 1960s when he joined the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and was active in research and investigation for NICAP until its demise in 1980. He became a member of MUFON in 1975 and was subsequently appointed to the position of state Director for Maryland, a position he still holds. In 1979 he was instrumental in establishing the Fund for UFO Research and was the chairman for 13 years. He presently serves on the National Board of the Fund.
His UFO research and investigations (which are completely unrelated to his Navy work) have included the Kenneth Arnold sighting (Jun 24, 1947), the McMinnville, Oregon (Trent) photos of 1950, the Gemini 11 astronaut photos of September, 1966, the New Zealand sightings of December, 1978, the Japan Airlines (JAL1628) sighting of November 1986, the numerous sightings that occurred in the area around Gulf Breeze Florida between 1987 and 1997 (a period of time that includes his own sighting in Gulf Breeze in September, 1991), the Mexico City video of August, 1997, the Phoenix lights sightings of March 13, 1997 (the videos obtained at about 10 pm) and many others. He has also done historical research and was the first to obtain the flying disc file of the FBI (the REAL X-Files!).
Dr. Maccabee is the author or coauthor of about three dozen technical articles and more than a hundred UFO articles over the last 30 years, including many which appeared in the MUFON Journal and MUFON Symposium proceedings. He wrote the last chapter of The Gulf Breeze Sightings by Edward and Frances Walters (Morrow, 1990). He wrote the UFO history chapter of the book UFOs: Zeugen und Zeichen, published in Germany in 1995. He is co-author with Edward Walters of UFOs Are Real, Here's The Proof, (Avon Books, 1997), he is the author of The UFO/FBI Connection (Llewellyn Books, May, 2000) and the author of the novel, Abduction in My Life (Granite Publishing, 2001). He is listed in Who's Who in Technology Today and American Men and Women of Science.
Dr. Maccabee is one of the most interviewed researchers in the entire field including print, radio and TV media since 1978. He has also appeared in a number of documentaries. A partial list of appearances includes: Good Morning America, Larry King, A Current Affair, Unsolved Mysteries, National Public Radio, Sonya Live on CNN, Encounters TV, Dreamland Radio, Central TV London, Sightings, Italian TV San Marino, A&E TV Where are all the UFOs, The Learning Channel, History Channel, Fox TV, Fox4 News, ABC Nightline, Transmedia Productions, London Weekend Television, Discovery Channel UFOs Down to Earth, 20th Century Radio w/ Zoh and Bob Heironimus, Radio South Africa, Unexplained Mysteries, WHAG Hagerstown, American Freedom News Radio, SIRIUS Satellite Radio Hilly Rose, Good Day USA, WHPK Chicago, WMTR Julie Briggg, WKVL Knowxville, Canadian Broadcasting Company Coast to Coast Morning TV, WMC AM 790 Enigma Connection, WSBA Gary Sutton Show, WLW Scizone w/ Bill Boshears, WGY, Don Weeks, CJAD Holder Overnight, WABJ John Sebastian, X-Zone Radio, WFAD Middlebury VT, KMMS George Carter, XZONE Radio w/ Rob McConnell, KTOX Needles Dave & Dave, KOTK Portland Clyde Lewis, WBAL Baltimore Chip Franklin, KOMA Lan Lamphere.
Michael Salla, PhD (Australia)
Dr. Salla lost his status at American University and his projects were denied renewal as a direct result of his participation in X-Conference 2004. This is just one more disgrace in a long history of head-in-the-sand denial by the entire American academic community regarding extraterrestrial-related phenomena. Michael has the courage and integrity to follow the information wherever it leads. American University is perfectly situated to be a leader in the development in exopolitics. The opportunity was and is there to break new ground, to make a difference. American University took a pass.
Michael is a pioneer in the development of exopolitics, the scholarly study of the main actors, institutions and processes associated with an extraterrestrial presence that is not acknowledged to the general public, elected officials or the mass media. His interest in exopolitics evolved out of his investigation of the sources of international conflict and its relationship with the undisclosed extraterrestrial presence. He cites evidence extraterrestrial races are currently engaging humanity and the planet in a variety of ways. His book Exopolitics: Political Implications of the Extraterrestrial Presence (Dandelion Books, 2004) presents a comprehensive study of the political implications of the extraterrestrial presence. His forthcoming book, The Challenge of Exopolitics (Dandelion Books 2005) analyses challenges in educating the general public about exopolitical issues.
Michael is the author/editor of an additional four books in international politics including The Hero's Journey Toward a Second American Century (Greenwood Press, 2002); Essays on Peace (Central Queensland University Press, 1995); Why the Cold War Ended (Greenwood Press, 1995); and Islamic Radicalism, Muslim Nations and the West (1993). He has also authored more than seventy articles, chapters, and book reviews on peace, ethnic conflict and conflict resolution. He has held academic appointments in the School of International Service & the Center for Global Peace, American University, Washington DC (1996-2004); the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (1994-96); and the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, DC, (2002). He has a PhD in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an MA in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He has conducted research and fieldwork in the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri Lanka, and organized peacemaking initiatives involving mid to high level participants from these conflicts.
Michael has conducted extensive interviews for both his exopolitical and international conflict research on Coast to Coast AM; the Jeff Rense Program; the Gary Null Show; the Hickman Report; Mysteries of the Mind; KDKA (Radio), Pittsburgh; BBC World Service, (Radio); 3ER (Radio), Melbourne, Australia; ABC TV, Canberra, Australia; 2CN, ABC Radio, Canberra; 2XX (Radio), Canberra; SBS (Radio), Melbourne; KSRO (Radio), Santa Rosa, CA; KRLA (Radio) Los Angeles. And in the Washington, DC metro area: Voice of America Television & Radio, ABC Radio, ABC Online; Religion & Ethics News Weekly (TV), WTOP (Radio), Hearst-Argyle Television, CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) TV News, MSNBC (TV) News, America's Voice (TV) and WMAL (Radio).
________________________________________________________
The X-Conference is produced by
Paradigm Research Group Stephen Bassett , Executive Director
202-215-8344
February 19, 2005 at 12:55 PM | Permalink
Conference co-moderator and executive producer Stephen Bassett.
Executive Producer/Speaker/Host is a political activist, founder of Paradigm Research Group, Executive Director of the Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee (X-PPAC, pronounced expack), author of the Paradigm Clock website, and a political columnist, commentator and former Independent candidate for Congress. He is the executive producer of the X-Conference.
Presently he is the only registered lobbyist in the United States representing extraterrestrial related phenomena research/activist organizations, and X-PPAC is the first political action committee to target the political implications of extraterrestrial related phenomena. Between April 19 and November 5 of 2002 he conducted an independent candidacy in the 2002 congressional campaign in the 8th District of Maryland. It was the first instance in which a candidate on the November ballot in a federal election openly addressed the matter of an extraterrestrial presence and the government imposed truth embargo.
On January 13 of 2003 he launched a new project, Citizen Hearing, which intends to conduct a week-long hearing in Washington, DC before former Members of the House and Senate. The motto for this project is, "If Congress will not do its job, the people will."
Since 1996 Bassett has assisted a number of organizations and initiatives, which have been making the case for 1) an end to the government embargo on the truth surrounding an extraterrestrial presence and 2) open congressional hearings to take the testimony of former military and agency employees witness to extraterrestrial related events and evidence. He has spoken to millions of Americans about the likelihood and implications of a formal disclosure event.
Special Presentation
Principal Websites
Paradigm Research Group: www.paradigmclock.com
X-PPAC: www.x-ppac.org
X-Conference: www.x-conference.com
Citizen Hearing: www.citizenhearing.org
Disclosure2003: www.disclosure2003.net
Lynne Kitei, MD - is an internationally acclaimed physician and health educator, a leader in early disease detection and prevention and Chief Clinical Consultant at the world-renowned Arizona Heart Institute's Imaging/Prevention/Wellness Center in Phoenix, Arizona. This highly accomplished professional is presenting at the X-Conference because she is a key witness to the still-unexplained mass sighting that took place throughout Arizona on March 13, 1997 - the "Phoenix Lights." After years of private research Lynne has "come out" to talk about the challenges facing high level professionals who wish to address any aspect of extraterrestrial-related phenomena as well as the inadequate media and government response to this extraordinary event. Dr. Kitei has been recognized in the Who's Who of American Women, was chosen as the Woman of the Year in Pennsylvania, and has been featured for her innovative and ground-breaking work in publications such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, TV Guide magazine, Runner magazine, Phoenix magazine, and Physician's Management magazine. She is an award winning producer, writer and director of health-related documentary films and was called the "woman pioneer of medical communications" in TV Guide after creating and producing innovative TV news health reports for NBC in Philadelphia in 1976. She has dedicated over 25 years to global public awareness, wellness, and health education. Her AIDS, Substance Abuse and Teen Pregnancy programs have won the Telly Bronze Award in 1995, the National Education Film & Video Festival Silver Apple Award in 1994, the New York International Film Festival Finalist Award in 1992 and 1993, the Chicago International Film Festival Silver Hugo and Finalist Awards in 1993, the Columbus International Film & Video Festival Honorable Mention Award in 1991, and the Arizona Hemmy Award in 1993 and 1994. Dr. Kitei receive her BS in Secondary Science Education from Temple University and an M.D. from the Temple University School of Medicine.
Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd - a futurist, peace advocate and environmental activist, is the father of Exopolitics. When "exopolitics" is formally (academically) recognized as the term describing the political and social intersection of the human race with extraterrestrial-related phenomena and ultimately extraterrestrial beings, the primary origin of this enormously important nomenclature will be attributed to Alfred Lambremont Webre. Michael Salla subsequently worked to expand and develop content within the intellectual framework, and Stephen Bassett worked to bring this framework and terminology to a larger audience. Dr. Webre is International Director of the Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS); a founder of the No Weapons in Space Campaign (NOWIS), a Canadian coalition to prevent the weaponization of space; and coordinates the Campaign for Cooperation in Space. He is a co-architect of the Space Preservation Act and the Space Preservation Treaty to ban space-based weapons. He is also an on-air host on Vancouver Coop Radio CFRO 102.7 FM. Webre is a former Fulbright Scholar and graduate of Yale University, Yale Law School (Yale Law School National Scholar), and the University of Texas Counseling Program. He was General Counsel to the NYC Environmental Protection Administration and environmental consultant to the Ford Foundation, futurist at Stanford Research Institute, and author. He taught economics at Yale University (Economics Department) and Civil Liberties at the University of Texas (Government Department). Alfred has been a delegate to the UNISPACE Outer Space Conference and NGO representative at the United Nations (Communications Coordination Committee for the UN; UN Second Special Session on Disarmament); elected Clinton-Gore Delegate to the 1996 Texas Democratic Convention; and a Member, Governor's Emergency Taskforce on Earthquake Preparedness, State of California (1980-82), appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Mr. Webre produced and hosted the Instant of Cooperation, the first live radio broadcast between USA and the then Soviet Union, carried live by Gosteleradio and NPR satellite in 1987. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar. Webre's new book EXOPOLITICS, POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN THE UNIVERSE (Universebooks 2005) will be launched at this Conference.
Paul Davids is a leading expert on the history of the Hollywood connection to science fiction and extraterrestrial-related phenomena. He was executive producer and co-writer of the Showtime film “Roswell,” starring Martin Sheen and Kyle MacLachlan, nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Television Motion Picture of 1994. Though always interested in science-fiction, the UFO issue is a matter of science fact for him, ever since a widely reported 1987 daylight sighting. In 1996 he was guest speaker at the banquet for the 50th anniversary of the White Sands Missile Range Pioneers, where he spoke about The Roswell Incident, and he has produced numerous informational programs about UFO’s. Paul earned a B.A. from Princeton University, where he won the university's three top creative writing awards all in one year (including the F. Scott Fitzgerald Prize), and afterwards he studied under full scholarship at the American Film Institute Center for Advanced Film Studies in Los Angeles.
Bruce Maccabee, PhD
[Breaking News: The January/February 2005 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS) published an article titled Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation. Dr. Deardorff was the lead author along with Bernard Haisch, Bruce Maccabee and Hal Puthoff. The paper reassessed the ETH in light of the new physics and included references to the posture and actions of the U.S. Air Force. It is an important event, and PRG is pleased that two of the paper's authors (Deardorff and Maccabee) will present on the implications of their findings. It is notable a Space.com article, ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood, Jan 14, 2005 by Leonard David, received millions of hits after the article was a top-story link at the Drudge Report website for several days.
PRG encourages all attendees to download or read this paper on line prior to coming to the X-Conference. This will allow Drs. Deardorff and Maccabee to speak to the larger implications of their paper as opposed to just restating the findings. [Download .pdf file here. See file on line at: www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf ]
Dr. Maccabee spent his early years in Rutland, Vt. After high school he studied physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, Mass (BS) and then at The American University, Washington, DC (MS, PhD, physics). In 1972 he commenced his long career at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, presently headquartered at Dahlgren, Virginia. He has worked on optical data processing, generation of underwater sound with lasers, various aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) using high power lasers and is presently involved in a program related to Homeland Security. Bruce Maccabee has been active in UFO research since late 1960s when he joined the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and was active in research and investigation for NICAP until its demise in 1980. He became a member of MUFON in 1975 and was subsequently appointed to the position of state Director for Maryland, a position he still holds. In 1979 he was instrumental in establishing the Fund for UFO Research and was the chairman for 13 years. He presently serves on the National Board of the Fund.
His UFO research and investigations (which are completely unrelated to his Navy work) have included the Kenneth Arnold sighting (Jun 24, 1947), the McMinnville, Oregon (Trent) photos of 1950, the Gemini 11 astronaut photos of September, 1966, the New Zealand sightings of December, 1978, the Japan Airlines (JAL1628) sighting of November 1986, the numerous sightings that occurred in the area around Gulf Breeze Florida between 1987 and 1997 (a period of time that includes his own sighting in Gulf Breeze in September, 1991), the Mexico City video of August, 1997, the Phoenix lights sightings of March 13, 1997 (the videos obtained at about 10 pm) and many others. He has also done historical research and was the first to obtain the flying disc file of the FBI (the REAL X-Files!).
Dr. Maccabee is the author or coauthor of about three dozen technical articles and more than a hundred UFO articles over the last 30 years, including many which appeared in the MUFON Journal and MUFON Symposium proceedings. He wrote the last chapter of The Gulf Breeze Sightings by Edward and Frances Walters (Morrow, 1990). He wrote the UFO history chapter of the book UFOs: Zeugen und Zeichen, published in Germany in 1995. He is co-author with Edward Walters of UFOs Are Real, Here's The Proof, (Avon Books, 1997), he is the author of The UFO/FBI Connection (Llewellyn Books, May, 2000) and the author of the novel, Abduction in My Life (Granite Publishing, 2001). He is listed in Who's Who in Technology Today and American Men and Women of Science.
Dr. Maccabee is one of the most interviewed researchers in the entire field including print, radio and TV media since 1978. He has also appeared in a number of documentaries. A partial list of appearances includes: Good Morning America, Larry King, A Current Affair, Unsolved Mysteries, National Public Radio, Sonya Live on CNN, Encounters TV, Dreamland Radio, Central TV London, Sightings, Italian TV San Marino, A&E TV Where are all the UFOs, The Learning Channel, History Channel, Fox TV, Fox4 News, ABC Nightline, Transmedia Productions, London Weekend Television, Discovery Channel UFOs Down to Earth, 20th Century Radio w/ Zoh and Bob Heironimus, Radio South Africa, Unexplained Mysteries, WHAG Hagerstown, American Freedom News Radio, SIRIUS Satellite Radio Hilly Rose, Good Day USA, WHPK Chicago, WMTR Julie Briggg, WKVL Knowxville, Canadian Broadcasting Company Coast to Coast Morning TV, WMC AM 790 Enigma Connection, WSBA Gary Sutton Show, WLW Scizone w/ Bill Boshears, WGY, Don Weeks, CJAD Holder Overnight, WABJ John Sebastian, X-Zone Radio, WFAD Middlebury VT, KMMS George Carter, XZONE Radio w/ Rob McConnell, KTOX Needles Dave & Dave, KOTK Portland Clyde Lewis, WBAL Baltimore Chip Franklin, KOMA Lan Lamphere.
Michael Salla, PhD (Australia)
Dr. Salla lost his status at American University and his projects were denied renewal as a direct result of his participation in X-Conference 2004. This is just one more disgrace in a long history of head-in-the-sand denial by the entire American academic community regarding extraterrestrial-related phenomena. Michael has the courage and integrity to follow the information wherever it leads. American University is perfectly situated to be a leader in the development in exopolitics. The opportunity was and is there to break new ground, to make a difference. American University took a pass.
Michael is a pioneer in the development of exopolitics, the scholarly study of the main actors, institutions and processes associated with an extraterrestrial presence that is not acknowledged to the general public, elected officials or the mass media. His interest in exopolitics evolved out of his investigation of the sources of international conflict and its relationship with the undisclosed extraterrestrial presence. He cites evidence extraterrestrial races are currently engaging humanity and the planet in a variety of ways. His book Exopolitics: Political Implications of the Extraterrestrial Presence (Dandelion Books, 2004) presents a comprehensive study of the political implications of the extraterrestrial presence. His forthcoming book, The Challenge of Exopolitics (Dandelion Books 2005) analyses challenges in educating the general public about exopolitical issues.
Michael is the author/editor of an additional four books in international politics including The Hero's Journey Toward a Second American Century (Greenwood Press, 2002); Essays on Peace (Central Queensland University Press, 1995); Why the Cold War Ended (Greenwood Press, 1995); and Islamic Radicalism, Muslim Nations and the West (1993). He has also authored more than seventy articles, chapters, and book reviews on peace, ethnic conflict and conflict resolution. He has held academic appointments in the School of International Service & the Center for Global Peace, American University, Washington DC (1996-2004); the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (1994-96); and the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, DC, (2002). He has a PhD in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an MA in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He has conducted research and fieldwork in the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri Lanka, and organized peacemaking initiatives involving mid to high level participants from these conflicts.
Michael has conducted extensive interviews for both his exopolitical and international conflict research on Coast to Coast AM; the Jeff Rense Program; the Gary Null Show; the Hickman Report; Mysteries of the Mind; KDKA (Radio), Pittsburgh; BBC World Service, (Radio); 3ER (Radio), Melbourne, Australia; ABC TV, Canberra, Australia; 2CN, ABC Radio, Canberra; 2XX (Radio), Canberra; SBS (Radio), Melbourne; KSRO (Radio), Santa Rosa, CA; KRLA (Radio) Los Angeles. And in the Washington, DC metro area: Voice of America Television & Radio, ABC Radio, ABC Online; Religion & Ethics News Weekly (TV), WTOP (Radio), Hearst-Argyle Television, CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) TV News, MSNBC (TV) News, America's Voice (TV) and WMAL (Radio).
________________________________________________________
The X-Conference is produced by
Paradigm Research Group Stephen Bassett , Executive Director
202-215-8344
February 19, 2005 at 12:55 PM | Permalink
Presidency in the Politics of Disclosure, Part III
The Role of the Presidency in the Politics of Disclosure.
Part III - The Case for and against Gore
Stephen Bassett, Paradigm Clock
Summary: The public is fairly fed up with ludicrously expensive, winning-is-everything politics. Gore has embraced both adjectives with a passion. As a result, his willingness to touch the UFO/ET problem on moral/ethical grounds, knowing it will damage him politically and hurt his party, is most certainly in doubt.
Washington, DC ? In 1945 as WWII ended and the Cold War began - world human population was 2.3 billion. It had taken several million years to achieve that level. The Cold War symbolically ended in 1989 ? world population was 5.2 billion. Today it is 6.1 billion.
This grand conflict was certainly unlike any before it. It was not the longest war in history, but it was the most expensive. Its cost estimation is a complex work in progress However, factoring in all related expenditures by the United States and its allies plus the Soviet Union, and including the costs of environmental cleanup and disarmament, you get a figure somewhere between $15 and $20 trillion in 2000 dollars. This is an amount greater than the cost of all the wars waged in all of history.
Thus, in a period in which the population of the planet added 3.8 billion, the first world nations committed $15+ trillion in treasure to an ideological difference of opinion. None of this money was available to feed, clothe, heal or educate the additional arrivals.
During the nuclear age, tens of thousands have died as a result of an atomic explosion. Tens of millions of have died as a result of the gap between human need and the resources required to serve it. By starvation, environmental degradation, disease, territorial wars over resources, genocide, and countless other derivative causes, the Cold War generated a profound level of suffering and death ? it just didn?t get the credit.
While we were focusing our fear and apprehension on the next nuclear bomb which never detonated, the population bomb exploded and laid waste to millions of the weakest and poorest of the human family. That this aspect of the Cold War took place outside the U. S. borders only dampened the awareness of the American public to its reality and ensured it would not be a factor in the policies created to pursue the conflict.
Like the general interest in UFOs, population concern tends to move in and out of fashion. Talk show legend Johnny Carson single handedly created a significant upswing in the 70?s due to his personal interest and repeated guest appearances on the Tonight Show by Paul Erhlich, one of the leading environmental and population theorists. More importantly, there are few areas of controversy which are as verboten for politicians to engage as the UFO/ET issue ? one of them is population control/reduction.
The U.S. Census Bureau predicts a world population of 9.1 billion by 2050 using very conservative growth projections. Beyond then, one would best not project, since the earth has hinted at methods by which further growth will not be permitted regardless of the degree of our need to breed. And these methods are of a type that only a Wes Craven could properly appreciate.
We grouse about the intrusive images of starving children that interrupt our channel surfing. If the trend toward 9.1 billion humans in 2050 proceeds, one should be prepared for all Sally Struthers, all the time. Unless there is a profound change in world view by the leaders and citizens of the advanced nations, the first half of the 21st Century will produce a level of suffering, death, and deprivation surpassing even the best our last century could generate.
Because the population problem and possible solutions are verboten as political discourse, those with legitimate concern usually proffer ?environmental? front issues to indirectly address the question. As in the case of the extraterrestrial presence, there is always a price when the truths surrounding any controversy are kept out of the political arena.
The 50-year death march to 9.1 billion human beings packed into a world of diminishing resources begins next year.
Which brings us to Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. It is already well known that Patrick Buchanan has the finest 19th Century mind in America. He will not become the president. The question before us is, ?which candidate has a 21st Century mind?? Who either has or can acquire a worldview commensurate with the new set of problems the human race is about to encounter? And make no mistake, one of those problems will be adjusting to the knowledge we are being engaged by extraterrestrial beings more advanced and with a complex agenda.
Actually, there is an easy answer ? Heather Harder. But she will not become the president either. This leaves Gore and Ralph Nader. As it happens, Green Party aside, Nader is very much a 20th Century guy. However, he is progressive and resonates with the disenchanted left. So much so, he might well play the same role as Perot in 1992, only this time on the Democrat side, and elect George W. Bush president. In politics, like nowhere else, what goes around, comes around.
To assess Gore as a potential president, the following books are suggested: The World According to Al Gore ? Joseph Kaufman, Inventing Al Gore ? Bill Turque, and Gore: A Political Life ? Bob Zelnick, in ascending order of critical intensity.
But do not even think of voting for this man unless you have read, Earth in the Balance, his environmental/ theological/ political manifesto.
Written just after the near fatal accident of his young son, it is a highly unusual book for a political careerist, which Gore most certainly is. Outside of a few years as a journalist, he has been a professional politician following a path set out by his senator father. Gore does not want to write this book if he is following the rules of modern political strategy. Here he goes where others fear to tread. Does he have the worldview to take on an issue as difficult as the UFO/ET reality?
This book and Gore?s intellectual interests would seem to make that case. But there are serious problems elsewhere.
It is difficult to read about Gore?s career without thinking of The Candidate, a movie starring Robert Redford which gets hauled out of the vault every election year along with The Seduction of Joe Tynan with Alan Alda. The American public has come to believe the political process is fundamentally corrupting. No matter what degree of intellectual sincerity and vision you enter with, it will be stripped away by the time you leave. Al Gore may be the poster child for this cynical view.
The public is fairly fed up with ludicrously expensive, winning-is-everything politics. Gore has embraced both adjectives with a passion. As a result, his willingness to touch the UFO/ET problem on moral/ethical grounds, knowing it will damage him politically and hurt his party, is most certainly in doubt.
He is well aware of President Clinton?s interest in the UFO subject, including the briefings of Clinton staffers and the charge given to Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell by Clinton to look into the matter at the DOJ. He was witness to these activities going over like lead trial balloons, and this includes the efforts of Rep. Steven Schiff of New Mexico. Further, Gore has never shown much interest in challenging the military/intelligence community.
If he has, in fact, lost his ability to say what he means and mean what he says regardless of the political consequences, there is not much prospect of his taking up the disclosure mantle as president.
However, Gore has shown courage at times. He volunteered for Vietnam against his own personal views because it would have hurt his father?s senate campaign had he stayed out, which he most certainly could have done. He was one of ten Democrats who voted with the Republicans in support of President Bush?s Gulf War resolution. It was a risky vote of conscience. It came at a time when he had withdrawn from the coming 1992 presidential campaign and was completing work on Earth in the Balance. It was the zenith of Al Gore?s career as a man apart from the corrupting influence of paying for and winning elections.
Because of his service in Vietnam, the Gulf War vote, and unchallenged devotion to family values, he is viewed far more favorably than Clinton by the military and intelligence careerists who are conservative and republican in the majority. Should he win the election, they may consider dealing with Gore on disclosure rather than riding out another four years of government witness leakage and pressure by the UFO/ET activists and the media.
William Clinton had the opportunity to make the UFO/ET disclosure his presidential legacy. It would now appear he has chosen to make Al Gore his legacy. Perhaps he feels that disclosure under Gore will reflect back on him ? a two-for-one.
Bush or Gore, take your pick. Regardless of who you choose, you will have to let him know in unambiguous terms you want the UFO cover-up to end, now. You might consider starting with the campaign. It is long past time for candidates for the highest office in the country to be repeatedly ask about the UFO/ET reality until they respond in depth without insulting anyone?s intelligence. Long past.
Part III - The Case for and against Gore
Stephen Bassett, Paradigm Clock
Summary: The public is fairly fed up with ludicrously expensive, winning-is-everything politics. Gore has embraced both adjectives with a passion. As a result, his willingness to touch the UFO/ET problem on moral/ethical grounds, knowing it will damage him politically and hurt his party, is most certainly in doubt.
Washington, DC ? In 1945 as WWII ended and the Cold War began - world human population was 2.3 billion. It had taken several million years to achieve that level. The Cold War symbolically ended in 1989 ? world population was 5.2 billion. Today it is 6.1 billion.
This grand conflict was certainly unlike any before it. It was not the longest war in history, but it was the most expensive. Its cost estimation is a complex work in progress However, factoring in all related expenditures by the United States and its allies plus the Soviet Union, and including the costs of environmental cleanup and disarmament, you get a figure somewhere between $15 and $20 trillion in 2000 dollars. This is an amount greater than the cost of all the wars waged in all of history.
Thus, in a period in which the population of the planet added 3.8 billion, the first world nations committed $15+ trillion in treasure to an ideological difference of opinion. None of this money was available to feed, clothe, heal or educate the additional arrivals.
During the nuclear age, tens of thousands have died as a result of an atomic explosion. Tens of millions of have died as a result of the gap between human need and the resources required to serve it. By starvation, environmental degradation, disease, territorial wars over resources, genocide, and countless other derivative causes, the Cold War generated a profound level of suffering and death ? it just didn?t get the credit.
While we were focusing our fear and apprehension on the next nuclear bomb which never detonated, the population bomb exploded and laid waste to millions of the weakest and poorest of the human family. That this aspect of the Cold War took place outside the U. S. borders only dampened the awareness of the American public to its reality and ensured it would not be a factor in the policies created to pursue the conflict.
Like the general interest in UFOs, population concern tends to move in and out of fashion. Talk show legend Johnny Carson single handedly created a significant upswing in the 70?s due to his personal interest and repeated guest appearances on the Tonight Show by Paul Erhlich, one of the leading environmental and population theorists. More importantly, there are few areas of controversy which are as verboten for politicians to engage as the UFO/ET issue ? one of them is population control/reduction.
The U.S. Census Bureau predicts a world population of 9.1 billion by 2050 using very conservative growth projections. Beyond then, one would best not project, since the earth has hinted at methods by which further growth will not be permitted regardless of the degree of our need to breed. And these methods are of a type that only a Wes Craven could properly appreciate.
We grouse about the intrusive images of starving children that interrupt our channel surfing. If the trend toward 9.1 billion humans in 2050 proceeds, one should be prepared for all Sally Struthers, all the time. Unless there is a profound change in world view by the leaders and citizens of the advanced nations, the first half of the 21st Century will produce a level of suffering, death, and deprivation surpassing even the best our last century could generate.
Because the population problem and possible solutions are verboten as political discourse, those with legitimate concern usually proffer ?environmental? front issues to indirectly address the question. As in the case of the extraterrestrial presence, there is always a price when the truths surrounding any controversy are kept out of the political arena.
The 50-year death march to 9.1 billion human beings packed into a world of diminishing resources begins next year.
Which brings us to Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. It is already well known that Patrick Buchanan has the finest 19th Century mind in America. He will not become the president. The question before us is, ?which candidate has a 21st Century mind?? Who either has or can acquire a worldview commensurate with the new set of problems the human race is about to encounter? And make no mistake, one of those problems will be adjusting to the knowledge we are being engaged by extraterrestrial beings more advanced and with a complex agenda.
Actually, there is an easy answer ? Heather Harder. But she will not become the president either. This leaves Gore and Ralph Nader. As it happens, Green Party aside, Nader is very much a 20th Century guy. However, he is progressive and resonates with the disenchanted left. So much so, he might well play the same role as Perot in 1992, only this time on the Democrat side, and elect George W. Bush president. In politics, like nowhere else, what goes around, comes around.
To assess Gore as a potential president, the following books are suggested: The World According to Al Gore ? Joseph Kaufman, Inventing Al Gore ? Bill Turque, and Gore: A Political Life ? Bob Zelnick, in ascending order of critical intensity.
But do not even think of voting for this man unless you have read, Earth in the Balance, his environmental/ theological/ political manifesto.
Written just after the near fatal accident of his young son, it is a highly unusual book for a political careerist, which Gore most certainly is. Outside of a few years as a journalist, he has been a professional politician following a path set out by his senator father. Gore does not want to write this book if he is following the rules of modern political strategy. Here he goes where others fear to tread. Does he have the worldview to take on an issue as difficult as the UFO/ET reality?
This book and Gore?s intellectual interests would seem to make that case. But there are serious problems elsewhere.
It is difficult to read about Gore?s career without thinking of The Candidate, a movie starring Robert Redford which gets hauled out of the vault every election year along with The Seduction of Joe Tynan with Alan Alda. The American public has come to believe the political process is fundamentally corrupting. No matter what degree of intellectual sincerity and vision you enter with, it will be stripped away by the time you leave. Al Gore may be the poster child for this cynical view.
The public is fairly fed up with ludicrously expensive, winning-is-everything politics. Gore has embraced both adjectives with a passion. As a result, his willingness to touch the UFO/ET problem on moral/ethical grounds, knowing it will damage him politically and hurt his party, is most certainly in doubt.
He is well aware of President Clinton?s interest in the UFO subject, including the briefings of Clinton staffers and the charge given to Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell by Clinton to look into the matter at the DOJ. He was witness to these activities going over like lead trial balloons, and this includes the efforts of Rep. Steven Schiff of New Mexico. Further, Gore has never shown much interest in challenging the military/intelligence community.
If he has, in fact, lost his ability to say what he means and mean what he says regardless of the political consequences, there is not much prospect of his taking up the disclosure mantle as president.
However, Gore has shown courage at times. He volunteered for Vietnam against his own personal views because it would have hurt his father?s senate campaign had he stayed out, which he most certainly could have done. He was one of ten Democrats who voted with the Republicans in support of President Bush?s Gulf War resolution. It was a risky vote of conscience. It came at a time when he had withdrawn from the coming 1992 presidential campaign and was completing work on Earth in the Balance. It was the zenith of Al Gore?s career as a man apart from the corrupting influence of paying for and winning elections.
Because of his service in Vietnam, the Gulf War vote, and unchallenged devotion to family values, he is viewed far more favorably than Clinton by the military and intelligence careerists who are conservative and republican in the majority. Should he win the election, they may consider dealing with Gore on disclosure rather than riding out another four years of government witness leakage and pressure by the UFO/ET activists and the media.
William Clinton had the opportunity to make the UFO/ET disclosure his presidential legacy. It would now appear he has chosen to make Al Gore his legacy. Perhaps he feels that disclosure under Gore will reflect back on him ? a two-for-one.
Bush or Gore, take your pick. Regardless of who you choose, you will have to let him know in unambiguous terms you want the UFO cover-up to end, now. You might consider starting with the campaign. It is long past time for candidates for the highest office in the country to be repeatedly ask about the UFO/ET reality until they respond in depth without insulting anyone?s intelligence. Long past.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
