With all the reticence, one might suppose that we are waiting for something. Do we know what for? Is our crystal ball sufficiently clear that we can afford to play a waiting game? Are we waiting for something good or bad? Are we simply putting off 'til tomorrow? What came between Jimmy (1977-81) and his promise of disclosure? It must have been something specific. No? Should we not have a handle on this? It does seem bizarre that Peter has not made an attempt to report. Should we not know who is posing as having an official interest? I don't see a rationale for our level of apparent inaction. Any trend in inquiries from either in or outside the government?
What did Jimmy do wrong? Whom should he have asked? BJ? If not, would he not delegate someone to investigate? Would he not pursue the phenomenology angle. Where would Graff have fit into that picture? Is the privatization an issue here? Have we ever said that it was? Perhaps in reference to Hughes and the Yellow Book. We also have to consider the Anderson and Straub business, not forgetting Woolsey, D'Amato, Goss, or Billy Graham. We also have the Rockefeller & Clinton initiative. Even Bill L. got into that act. And 9/11? Have we not been able to connect these dots? Over the years, has there been developed no methodology for dealing with these high level inquiries? But we have already tacitly admitted to knowledge of these issues. But that only brings the issue of reticence to the fore. We are not denying that we have done due diligence w.r.t. the counterintelligence problem, which would cover most of the above, anyway. We must assume that the presidents have some reasonable overview w.r.t. reticence. We would have to know if this were a big or small issue. Are we trying to make a big distinction between what is official and what is not? That is just a continuing nuisance. The public will not buy into that.
What we have here mainly is the sleeping dog scenario. Nobody wants to kick the dog. Whoever does is sure to get bitten. Even the presidents have seen this dog, and are quite willing to give it a wide berth. Who are we to second judge or second guess? Or is it also partly a sleeping beauty story, and we are waiting for prince charming? We are waiting for the kicker/kisser, depending on your point of view. The compromise in the sleeping frog. Who is going to kiss the frog and into what will it turn? Will it be a junkyard dog or a princess? Who really wants to find out? How may this issue be pressed? Would an appointment not push this over the top? Can Goss not have been informed?
We are dealing with a sleeper issue. The timeline is critical and it must have something to do with the nuclear and cultural issues. Both of these latter issues are often seen in apocalyptic terms, anyway. Some see the nuclear card as a way to draw out the joker. I'm not sure we want to continue to play that game.
There is pretty clearly a linkage between the visitors and the bomb. There is a serious message in that fact. We continue to ignore it at what peril? Who is deciding? Ocelot and Ferret? The Ruskies were not playing the eschaton game. With the Arabs and Israelis, not to mention the terrorists, it seems a different matter.
Even if we don't know it, should we not treat the prospective appointment as related to the timeline, even though the eschaton may be presumed to be bipartisan? How many people who are aware of phenomenology are not aware of its connection to the eschaton? I doubt there could be many. How many who know of CF are unaware of phenomenology?
I met with CF on Friday. Our principal topic was that of briefings.
Another instance of this had come up in regards to Peter Davenport, a private ufologist with a previous security clearance, who had been invited to DC where he was told by some folks who claimed to be representing the government that his UFO Hotline was a valuable tool, and that the problem was taken seriously by the government.
I asked CF about attempting to follow up on this information. His response was that he was already aware of dozens of such 'briefings', and that his previous attempts at follow-up, had been uniformly negative. In particular, his attempt to find connections between the known briefers failed. The leads were dead ends. Typically there would be a single, low echelon staff person at a given facility. The supervisor would claim to be unaware of the incident.
CF also mentioned that you had anecdotal knowledge of a number of ufo-type 'briefings', besides your own. I am not sure to what extent you may have previously shared this information with Ron, or to what extent you may have attempted your own follow-ups or informal analysis of these reports.
CF has raised the possibility that the uncorrelated nature of these briefing reports may be similar to the uncorrelated nature of the ufo reports themselves. His suggestion to me was that the sightings and the briefings might well be understood collectively as a kind of smokescreen or decoy operation. It is a screen that may be deliberately generated, and not necessarily or ultimately just by a human agency. We then have to wonder about the nature of the activity that is supposedly being concealed thereby. CF averred that an eschatological connection could not and has not been ruled out.
CF did say that your interpretation of this type of data might well differ from his own. Could you possibly help us out here?
This was sent yesterday, and there has been no response so far. CF has suggested another meeting before the election, and he also suggested inviting Joe S. Joe said he could be down here on short notice. Bill L. is not happy with this information about the briefings. He suspects that there have been more substantial briefings, particularly in the early years. Also this does not reference what might happen at a higher level. Would a president be given the 'smokescreen' theory? I would not want to suggest that abduction reports, for instance, are merely a smokescreen. They reference a substantive interaction of some kind. Is all this just about the UTs disguising themselves as ETs, to the point of arranging briefings about an alleged reverse engineering program?
My correspondent also said that he has already done his own bi-static radar tests, similar to what Peter has proposed. At whatever phase space he examined he would see uncorrelated targets. He and Peter have both corresponded with a John Sars at U of W in Seattle concerning the techniques. Thus the notion of a smokescreen. Defense systems are typically designed to filter out anomalous targets.
An agenda item for the next meeting would be the future of phenomenology, inside and outside of government. Can we ignore the smokescreen, going forward? Is there any reason to be looking for developments in that arena? Has the smokescreen theory been discussed or disseminated? Have BJ or Hal explained their reticence? Let's suppose that eschatology cannot be ruled out, then what can we do about it? Should we not be pushing harder on the EFG? Networking? Or do we this dog sleep? Can we anticipate a trigger?
I'm expecting a phone call from Steve. Invite him to a meeting along with Ron & Joe? He will also not be happy with the smokescreen rationale. Will he see it as a copout? Reference bi-statics. What positive spin may be put on the rationale?
There is typically a lot of noise in the atmospheric sigint, but not all of it is just noise. It is target noise. There is a related type of noise on the humint side, i.e. the briefings. Neither of these correlate sufficiently to provide any actionable intelligence. This is a specification of the phenomenology problem. It does not provide a briefing rationale for the pres. (for a DCI?), unless you add the eschaton, which is probably too speculative. This problem, by itself, does not explain the Anderson article or the Straub briefing. Has the eschaton contingency been discussed in connection with this phenomenology problem. CF states that there was correlation with nuclear programs, early on.
Suppose the visitors did want to facilitate an eschaton. What would be their leverage? Threats would work better than actions. There would need to be a special source such as discussed above.
We could go back to the portal problem. It seems to encapsulate several phenomenology problems. This is the problem of rematerialization. What is the path of least disturbance? We have to worry about the physiology going in either direction. How does this relate to the problem of atoms? Can there be partial metabolism?
I sent this out today:
What we know so far:
1.) There are dozens of semi-formal 'briefings', most of which could not have been arranged by any known source. They occur outside of any scheme of official secrecy.
2.) There is a reasonable degree of consistency in the content, which includes the 'core story' and some information about a non-USG technological R.E.P. [reverse engineering program].
3.) There exists a briefing coordinator. This coordinator would be very well networked with regard to collecting information on the targets and in the ability to task independent briefers.
4.) However, from past experience, the coordinator is skilled at avoiding detection.
Points 3 & 4 seem contradictory. How does one do networking and avoid detection at the same time?
5.) No obvious motive may be assigned to the coordinator.
6.) Several possibilities present themselves:
a.) Disinformation program.
b.) Psychological testing.
c.) Recruiting & induction into a secret group.
This list of possible motives is not exhaustive nor are the items mutually exclusive.
We may then juxtapose the 'briefing phenomenon' against other anomalous phenomena often associated with the visitors. In doing so, a possible message presents itself:
"We are here. We have excellent stealth and penetration skills. We can, in a coordinated manner, manipulate your political infrastructure, to say nothing of your popular culture. Stay tuned for further information."
If the REP story can be dismissed, but the core store cannot be, then the metaphysical/ eschatological scenario does become an obvious alternative interpretation. To this end we have formed an EFG. The question then arises as to what role might reasonably be assigned to an EFG going forward. Has there been an assessment of the level of activity that would be commensurate with the perceived challenge? [Lacking an REP] does the EFG presently constitute the primary mode of our response? Should the EFG view itself as an integral part of, or as an alternative to, the putative agenda of the visitors?
I am not quite sure where this briefing business is going. It is not an actionable item. I am not being encouraged to press for further information. I have the feeling that this base has already been covered. What is the point of inserting the false REP message into the briefing. It would serve simply to forestall questions about our response to the visitor presence. It would deflect the metaphysical issue.
It does seem that CF has been predisposed to an eschatological interpretation, at least from the time of my arrival on the scene.
I wonder how easy it is to discount the REP story? If it is as easy as CF indicates, then perhaps that element of the briefings is intended to raise doubts, but at the same time it forestalls immediate questions that might track toward the metaphysical and eschatological view.
In other words the briefings present the picture of a rational response to a 'conventional' ET visit. But this picture is time sensitive. It has a built-in obsolescence. The longer that the REP fails to surface or to deliver, the greater will be our suspicion as to what is really going on.
Early on we would wonder about a possible lack of cooperation between the ETs and the USG, pointing to conflicting agendas, or we could envision an evil conspiracy. But each of these scenarios is also time sensitive. Maintaining security could only be a temporary expedient. The onset of the Internet should already have doomed such measures. This leaves us with the alternative of a cooperative regime, not about technology, but still concerning a matter that is time critical. At this point our thoughts begin to turn toward matters religious.
For the most part, ufologists are still behind this curve. Is there a plan to bring them around? If I were running this informational initiative, I would see the ufologists as the prime targets for the next stage. They constitute a carefully prepared interest group that can act as a buffer between the visitors and the population at large. They represent a back channel of acclimation that allows 'us' to delay the very thorny problem of confronting the already highly conflicted sectarian interests.
'We' will have to single out a few key players in the ufo arena for a special briefing of our own device. This, I believe, is beyond the present capacity of the three of us. We would need more data and more credibility. For instance, CF has spoken about bringing Jack to a meeting, soon, i.e. the one referenced below. Jack will not sit still for anything less than the full monty, i.e. rather more than anything you or I have seen. Do you not agree?
In fact, I could ask Jack what it would take for him to change his tune. He has shown some flexibility in the past, but too quickly reverts to his formulaic business as usual. I would pick Jack out of the crowd as an optimal test subject for the next stage: a difficult but not impossible customer. But I would need more backing from CF, even just to test the water effectively. Do we need to wait and see how the political cookie will crumble?
And so it goes. Can we get back to the Green Door?
CF's principle statement was an objection to the idea that there might exist a trillion dollar REP.
We might want to pin him down a bit more on the upper limits of what might be able to slip under his radar. When they say the program is private, that does not exclude USG contracts or grants being involved. It would be beg, borrow or steal. Correct?
They speculate that many of us would kill ourselves if the truth were to come out. It is hard for me to imagine what piece of information might have such a drastic effect, short of something eschatological. Others have suggested that the 'truth' might include any or all of the following: they created us, they enslave us, they created our religions, etc.
I don't see any of these possibilities as leading to something as devastating as they suggest. Am I missing some other possibility, or do I underestimate the impact of those given?
They use the word "panic". That suggests to me only an eschatological scenario. Again, am I missing something?
They say that the persons in control are scientists and engineers. No theologians, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, ordinary folk, etc., etc.? This seems to be a very narrow spectrum of controllers.
If this were to be put up, secretly, to the Supreme Court, I seriously doubt that they would or could condone the constitutionality of whatever privatization process led to the present situation. Comments? Somehow, the word 'arrogance' springs to mind. Technically speaking, all authority here has been arrogated.
It does seem that you continue here to strongly favor the ETH over the UTH. The ETH is the premise of the REP. The UTH would only entail a comparatively very modest engineering response.
My involvement here is premised almost entirely upon the UTH. No?
This discussion now needs some input from CF concerning his view of the relative merits of these two hypotheses. There would be no point of bringing anyone else into the picture without this issue being better outlined or contained.
You and I could discuss these merits, but that would probably require a greater commitment of time on your part than what you have previously indicated.
With regard to CF, there seems to me to be a very substantial problem of due diligence. The issues that we seem to face could well be earth shattering. I think we agree that CF does not seem to be acting accordingly. This leaves just two possibilities: either CF is in gross dereliction of 'duty', or he has much better sources of information on this subject than he has ever let on to us.
This is another issue that is pressing for clarification as we attempt to move forward, if, indeed, that is what we are attempting to do.
The trillion dollar figure came from CF's extrapolating on the dozens of briefings at dozens of facilities, each focused in part on what was supposed to be happening at the location in question. After awhile, the various billions added up to a rather more substantial figure.
CF stated that you had also been informed about briefings other than your own. Is that not correct? It would be helpful if we could get our signals straight on this matter.
But, for just now, let us set aside the money and engineering problem, and focus on the core story: three guests in a sequence, a yellow book and a 'crashed' saucer.
Evidently they came here in a very deliberate fashion, and did so in order to impart some fairly specific knowledge. I would like to know if their mission was a success. Would you not also want to know this, xxx?
It seems that there is now no effort to disseminate this knowledge. It is quite unclear if there has been or is expected to be any technological benefit to us.
Could we agree then that, on the face of it, their mission failed?
If these guests were friendly, as the core story implies, then they were trying to help us, but evidently they failed in this effort. Should this failure not be a cause for our concern, or even alarm? Did you never even think to pose this question to your briefers?
In this event, you are very much like Jack and most of the ufologists. You show no concern for the deeper issues. Your only concern over the years has been to collect physical specimens. You show interest only in the 'how' question. You show no interest in the 'why' of it all.
What's it all about, xxx?
Just on your own interpretation, these entities have been around for millions and maybe billions of years longer than we have. Thus they would be expected to know orders of magnitude more about survival than do we. Is our species not now facing an unprecedented challenge to our very survival?
Did you not ask if the 'yellow book' contained any information pertinent to our survival problem? Did their custodians never raise this question to the visitors? Would this not very obviously be the number one question on the mind of any reasonable person in such a situation?
Am I to believe that in the many dozens of briefings, that this number one priority question never once came up?
Do you gather, xxx, that I am getting more than a little exasperated by what appears to be the utter and egregious lack of perspicuity on the part of everyone involved in or previously knowledgeable about the briefing process.
Are you going to tell me that I am the first person ever to have raised the survival issue, relative to our visitation?
I'm still waiting for someone to even pretend to be serious.
You are reconfirming my initial suspicion that this considerable quantity of data on the 'briefing phenomenon' has apparently been treated in a cavalier fashion.
Last Friday I suggested to CF that we ought to make a serious analysis of this mass of data. His response was that there now exist network analysis tools that could be brought to bear on this data, tools that were not previously available.
Fine. But before we plunge into a time consuming analysis effort, we should seriously consider CF's own off-the-cuff(?) analysis of this data: it is simply a decoy operation and/or a smokescreen.
My first point would be that it has been a very successful decoy operation, based on its considerable impact upon various segments of our population.
We then have a glaring discordance in the data: we have a enviably successful decoy operation ostensibly pointing to a wretchedly failed mission.
Should that cognitive dissonance (failure/success) not make the hair stand up on the neck of even the most plodding of analysts?
The very next step in the chain of analytic logic would be to surmise that the enviably successful decoy operation pointing to a wretchedly failed mission, is in fact serving as a decoy for a (so far?) successful mission of a rather different nature.
xxx, are you still with me here? Are you keeping up with the bouncing ball?
Should we suppose that the Junior Analyst of our mutual acquaintance has previously been unable to master this 'sophisticated' chain of logic? Might not such an analysis, plus another source or two, much better explain his cavalier attitude toward this data, rather than our having to posit a dereliction of duty on his part?
I would hope that my correspondent is not too far away from seeing the light, if light there is to be seen. You can lead a horse to the eschaton, but you can't make them drink. It would be helpful to have a third member of the focus group. There are a lot of people sitting on the sidelines waiting for some sort of signal. They are not making themselves useful. If BJ came around, the three of us could put on a show, even without much additional input from CF. We still have to see what will happen with Goss. BJ remains in correspondence with at least one of the briefers. Could not questions be posed? I'm not clear about what sort of meeting CF may have in mind. Jack always seems to be hyperventilating over the latest piece of physics trivia. He will not settle for anything less than a Nobel prize. That is the only tree up which he is constitutionally fit to bark. In one of his expansive moods, he will allow me a paragraph in his latest book. His forum can only be of limited use while he is in this terminal state of mind. I don't see any potential evangelists on the horizon. That is a serious deficit. Even if CF tried to bring Jack around, he would interpret it in a paranoid fashion. This would leave only Hal. If BJ could bring around a segment of the aviary, that might be of some use. That would cause some ripples. Otherwise, CF is going to have to turn over a new leaf. He will have to change his stripes.
Then there is always the green door. Easy to say, hard to figure. It is virtually self contradictory, even though, on the surface it should not be such a big deal. It does mess up the local relationalism. We have to appeal to a more general level, but I don't know how. There would be immediate problems with metabolism.
As a test case we should transition from a physical to a non-physical regime, although physicality can only ever be a matter of degree. We could take on a new body, but then have to dispose of the old one, leaving no way back. We can't go home again if we burn the bridge. It is true, however, that relationalism has to function non-locally. Strings will be attached, entanglement will occur.
Will there be air on the other side? There will not be a vacuum. There will also be a time problem, if time is less linear on the other side. It might be a problem like deep sea diving. If one comes back too quickly, one gets the bends. There would have to be a point of no return. After that point, any return would only be partial and temporary. The original body would no longer be serviceable. Or it would be too difficult to recondition it. Is there not a tendency for one regime to leak or spill into the other, depending on the amount of traffic? There would be a coattails effect. In general relativity, this is referred to as frame dragging. Not sure how this would effect inter-entity contacts. We might wonder if a pregnant person went over. 'Woe unto them that is with child'?
There would have to be a lot of yoga practice on the part of the tourists. Very likely we would be visited by the dear departed. There would be some bodily aspect of that, but it would be a shifting aspect. Our mutual eidetic memories would come into play. Another thing that might happen over there would be an age regression. It would also be a remedy for those with weight problems. On passing over we might be presented with alternative regimens. The problem of getting reincarnated is another aspect of this interchange. There must be considerable personal variation and subjectivity in all of these processes. When it comes to eschatology, where there's a will, there's a way.