UFO's and Defense What Should we Prepare For

IRoswell saucer like they believe in Mogul balloons or the V2s? Because it reminds them
too much ofpopular science fiction. As Bertrand Meheust emphasizes, the topic ofthe
Martian craft that had the exquisite courtesy to crash in the vicinity ofa military base Icomes under the heading ofthe technological imagination ofthe beginning ofthe
ce111ury, just like the detail regarding the ultralight and 11/traresistant materials that were
used in its construction. "(the journal Ovnipreserice, February 1995). IThis is, on the whole, the simplistic theory concerning UFOs stated by French
"sociopsychologists." It can be refuted as follows: at the beginning of the century,
popular science fiction described light rays capable of killing or healing. Nonetheless, Imilitary or medical lasers exist today.
Amplifying disinformation was manifested when the film on the autopsy of the "Roswell
creature" was aired. In expanding the Roswell affair with this spectacular, but I. .,
questionable, autopsy, some have succeeded in discrediting it and, especially, in covering
up the publi~ation of the GAO report and the dissemination of video testimonies. It is
tempting to believe in a well-orchestrated manipulation. I4) Reducing disinformation on UFOs
The Air Force has practiced this from the onset, as has been revealed by the astronomer
Hynek, who was an Air Force consultant from 1948 to 1966 and who described how he
aided in trivializing numerous cases by giving them unjustified astronomical
interpretations.
The disinformation policy was intensified as a result of the recommendations ofa 'I"scientific" committee assembled by the CIA in December 1952, the Robertson
Committee, which suggested "stripping the UFO phenomenon ofits aura ofmystery. " IThe same committee recommended "monitoring" the ufological movements, which were
infiltrated1 by the CIA mainly.
Several key figures have tried to nullify numerous important cases. Philip Klass, then Ieditor ofAviation Week qnd Space Technology, took on, among others, three major
aeronautical cases: Lakenheath in 1956, RB-47 in 1957, Tehran in 1976, which are
described in Chapter 2. He is hardly convincing. In the Tehran case, for example, he Icorrectly cites the testimonies at the beginning of his account, but doesn't take certain
aspects into account when he discusses them.
Reducing disinformation is effective on those who do not want to accept the possibility Iof the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Amplifying disinformation is aimed at others.
5) Amplifying disinformation on UFOs
IThis policy was probably implemented very early on~Adamslci's alleged contacts with a
Venusian in 1952 no doubt fall into this category.
It has become considerably extensive since the resurgence of the Roswell affair at the Iend of the 70s. The point of depanure is the Bennewicz case. This ufologist physicist
recorded pulsed microwaves from a testing ground at J(jrtland (New Mexico) Air Force
base. He attributed them to UFOs exerting control over "abductees" (lcidnapped humans) Ifurnished with implants! Fearing, it seems, the publication of his recordings, the Air Force
Office of Special Investigation (AFOS I) and, namely, its special agent Doty from the
aforementioned air base, as well as, perhaps, other agencies, induced him to make fantastic I"revelations": there were numerous kidnappings, with the placement ofimplants to control
the "abductees." Furthermore, technology transfers were supposedly carried out on bases
in New Mexico and Nevada jointly owned by the U.S. Army and extraterrestrials baptized IEBEs, Extraterrestrial Biological Entities.
Bennewicz disclosed this information to American saucerists, many of them thus being
I
I