« The Day the World Changed
Correction to the McCain Bundler Story »



From UFAs to UFOs

August 6th, 2008
By DORIAN DE WIND

Print Print

I do not know about anyone else, but I would like to take a little rest from reading, pondering, discussing, and writing about the numerous allegations and accusations that have been flying back and forth between the presidential candidates recently. For lack of a better term, let me call these “Unidentified Flying Accusations,” or “UFAs,” which (how conveniently!) takes me to the topic that I would like to briefly discuss, “Unidentified Flying Objects,“ or “UFOs”

What brings me to this topic is a recent New York Times article by Nick Pope who, according to the Times, is “the author of ‘Open Skies, Closed Minds, [and] was in charge of UFO investigations for the British Ministry of Defense from 1991 to 1994.”

I am neither a believer of UFOs nor one who considers those who believe in them to be total kooks. Nor am I an expert in this sort of phenomena. However, the national security implications that Pope raises in “Unidentified Flying Threats” piqued my interest–and skepticism.

Pope starts his interesting essay as follows:

On the afternoon of Nov. 7, 2006, pilots and airport employees at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago saw a disc-like object hovering over the tarmac for several minutes. Because nothing was tracked on radar, the Federal Aviation Administration did not investigate. Yet radar is not a reliable detector of all aircraft. Stealth planes are designed to be invisible to radar, and many radar systems filter out signals not matching the normal characteristics of aircraft. Did it really make sense to entirely ignore the observations of several witnesses?

Pope describes various UFO sightings in Britain, France and in the U.S., and is concerned that:

[T]he American government has not investigated U.F.O. sightings since 1969, when the Air Force ended Project Blue Book, while Britain and France, in contrast, continue to investigate U.F.O. sightings, because of concerns that some sightings might be attributable to foreign military aircraft breaching their airspace, or to foreign space-based systems of interest to the intelligence community.

Referring back to the weaknesses or deficiencies he attributes to radar, Pope assumes that:

…in the United States, this translates into overdependence on radar data and indifference to all kinds of unidentified aircraft — a weakness that could be exploited by terrorists or anyone seeking to engage in espionage against the United States.

One of my areas of some expertise while in the U.S. Air Force and with industry was related to air defense and air traffic control radars, but such “expertise” is about 20 years “out-of-date.” However, I can not believe that, considering the development and use of stealth and other “invisible” technologies by our adversaries here on earth, we would not have come up with our own “counter-technologies“ to provide timely and effective detection, identification, and, if necessary, destruction of any possible threat to our security—terrestrial or otherwise.

True, the Air Force “officially” ended its Blue Book Project in 1969, but, again, I am confident that our government, through other agencies, methods, technology—and funding—is continuing to be vigilant in this area.

The famous October 20, 1969, (USAF Brig. Gen. C. H.) “Bolender Memo” that recommended termination of Project Blue Book significantly included several caveats such as:

Termination of Project Blue Book would leave no official federal office to receive reports of UFOs. However, as already stated, reports of UFOs which could affect national security would continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedures designed for this purpose.

Moreover, reports of unidentified flying objects which could affect national security are made in accordance with JANAP 146 or Air Force Manual 55-11, and are not part of the Blue Book system

And, finally,

… the defense function could be performed within the framework established for intelligence and surveillance operations without the continuance of a special unit such as Project Blue Book.

Again, I am not an expert on, nor am I on either side of the UFO debate, but I have absolutely no problem repeating what we used to say during the days of the Soviet nuclear-tipped-ICBM threat: “Sleep well, your U.S. Air Force is watching over you.” This, I am positive, still goes not only with respect to the present earthbound threat, but also when it comes to the “little green men” threat.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm and is filed under Military Affairs, Arms, Terrorism, War, Technology, Military. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 2 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Mr. De Wind,

    Thank you for your thoughtful article. The UFO issue is one that needs to be discussed further. You mentioned the famous October 20, 1969, “Bolender Memo”. That was almost 40 years ago. It is time that our country looks into the issue again.

    Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell has recently come forward with information. Other remarkable evidence is also available proving that UFOs are real. See (www.disclosureproject.com and www.freedomofinfo.org). Please watch the whole “Smoking Gun” news conference on the disclosure project web site.

    Solid testimony from over 500 corporate and military witnesses has been accumulated by two disclosure initiatives. These disclosure witnesses have openly stated they are willing to testify, under oath and before Congress about their direct encounters with UFO crash site investigations, secret UFO documents, UFO photographic evidence, UFO radar reports and recovered crashed ET vehicles.

    As an Attorney, I can attest that the jurisprudential evidence of this quality does not get any better, especially when witnesses possess the ranks of Brigadier Generals, Commander of ICBM Launch facilities, Senior FAA Crash Site Investigators, astronauts, pilots and officers with above top secret clearance. Men have been executed in the U.S. with far less evidence.

    Other governments have started releasing previously classified data on ETs and UFOs. France was the first, in March 2007 the French National Space Agency placed 1600 previously classified UFO sighting reports into the public domain for examination; beginning the process of full disclosure of non-Earth origin craft. Similarly, the United Kingdom in May 2007 began a disclosure initiative. Other countries have started to follow suit. It is time for the United States to do the same.

    In my personal experience, I was a U.S. Army Major and held a top secret clearance. My awards include the Bronze Star Medal for leadership in combat as well as others. As a result of my positions other officers have confided in me and I have no doubt that there is something to this enigma.

    It is imperative that this issue receives media and elected official attention. It has been acknowledge by the U.S. military and other federal organizations, through freedom of information requests, that files on the subject remain classified. It is time for the country to move toward full disclosure. We the people, have the right to know the whole story.

    Franklin D. Fields, Jr.
    Attorney at Law
    Email: fields@gator.net
    • ^
    • v
    Dear Mr. Fields,

    Thank you for your comments on my "UFAs-UFOs" post.

    As I believe I tried to made clear in my post, I am neither a believer nor a disbeliever of UFOs, mainly because I have not researched this issue sufficiently. But I do have twenty years of military experience in air and space defense and subsequent assignments in related areas with industry.

    Thus, the main thrust of my comments was to dispute the notion that our government, i.e. our military, has not continued to be vigilant and effective, Project Blue Book or not, in investigating and, if necessary, countering any threat to our national security--whether such a threat originates on our planet or elsewhere.

    I especially disagree with the argument that "ignoring" extra-terrestrial UFO activity " translates into overdependence on radar data and indifference to all kinds of unidentified aircraft — a weakness that could be exploited by terrorists or anyone seeking to engage in espionage against the United States." While we may--and I repeat "may"--be lax in investigating extraterrestrial UFO activity, by no stretch of the imagination should this be translated or extrapolated into doubts about our ability to detect, track, identify and destroy any hostile, terrestrial aircraft, missile, or other threat.

    Now, the issue of government secrecy is an entirely different matter. Having held a top secret security clearance (as I did) I am sure you understand the need for classification of certain data and projects. As with any authority or "power," I am sure that the classification (and declassification) process is overused, misused and abused. You may be right that, "It is time for the country to move toward full disclosure. We the people, have the right to know the whole story." but, may I add, always keeping legitimate issues of national security foremost in mind.

    Again, thank you for your very pertinent comments

    Major Dorian de Wind (USAF, Ret.)
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« The Day the World Changed
Correction to the McCain Bundler Story »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.