In
the world of the UFO, we frequently talk about cognitive dissonance, which is
defined, simply as “the mental
discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously
holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or value.”
It means believing in two things that seem to
mutually exclusive. We run into this, I believe, when we begin to talk about
the Eisenhower Briefing Document (EBD) and the second crash of a UFO on the
Texas – Mexico border in December 1950.
Simply
put here, if the EBD is authentic, then the information contained in it must
also be authentic. If a portion of that information can be shown to be
fraudulent, then the credibility of the entire document collapses at that point.
Here’s
where we are on this. According to the EBD, “On 06 December, 1950 a second
object of similar origin, impacted the earth at high
speed in the El Indio –
Guerrero area of the Texas – Mexican border after following a long trajectory through
the atmosphere. By the time a search team arrived, what remained of the object
had bee almost totally incinerated. Such material as could be recovered was
transported to the A.E.C. facility at Sandia, New Mexico, for study.”
 |
| Robert Willingham, the man responsible for the fatal flaw. |
The
problem here is that this tale was told by Robert Willingham who had claimed to
have been a fighter pilot in the Air Force and had retired (or rather left the
service) as a colonel. I have, in the past, on this blog, explained why it is
clear that Willingham was neither a fighter pilot nor a colonel. Rather than go
into all the reasons again, just refer the articles that can be found here:
Well,
I think everyone gets the point. I have written about this on many occasions
and believed that this should have driven a stake, not only through the heart
of the Willingham tale but through the EBD as well. That one paragraph is based
on a hoax that those on the inside who were allegedly writing the EBD would
have known was a hoax. Please note that other, known hoaxes were not addressed,
including the famous Aztec hoax (which I mention solely to create more havoc).
Here’s
the point of this short piece. At the Roswell Festival (I don’t remember if it
was in 2011 or 2012) Stan Friedman came up and said, “I think you’re probably
right about Willingham but not about the Eisenhower Briefing Document.”
Cognitive
dissonance. Two mutually exclusive beliefs. One that Willingham had been lying
about the El Indio – Guerrero UFO crash but that the EBD was real.
Yes,
I know the fall back position. The EBD is disinformation, containing some real
information but also some that is faked. But given the context and everything
else, that makes no sense and does very little to establish the validity of the
EBD. All it does is call into question the whole of MJ-12 without actually
damaging the idea of an alien craft at Roswell. The EBD is seen as just a poor
attempt by UFO researchers to provide documentation of UFO crashes. It doesn’t
prove that Roswell wasn’t alien, only that this document was fraudulent.
But
what I don’t understand is how you can see that the Willingham tale is bogus
and not question the entirety of the EBD. There are other problems in the EBD,
but this seems to me, to be the fatal flaw. The information is based on a lie,
yet that isn’t enough to reject the EBD.
If
there was any other source on the El Indio – Guerrero crash, that would be one
thing, but all references to it, in various books, articles and documents are
all traceable back to Willingham as the original source. He provided a number
of dates and locations for the crash as the tide in the UFO community changed.
Without Willingham and his ever-changing story, there would be no tale of this
crash and if it hadn’t happened, then MJ-12 is equally bogus… yet there are
those who hold these mutually exclusive ideas that the document is real but
Willingham was lying… the very definition of cognitive dissonance, and that is
what I don’t understand. How can you argue for the validity of one while
confirming the other is untrue? I have yet to receive a good answer for the
question that isn’t wrapped in a lot of rhetoric without explaining anything.
8 comments:
The question you have to ask yourself about MJ-12 is: what did they prove? Really nothing. If they really were leaked by a government insider....why not leak something that actually advances the case? The Pentagon Papers proved quite a bit (and nobody is debating if they are authentic). Seems to me like a authentic leaker would have put out something technical that would show where they have gotten in looking at the material.
That being said, I've always felt that (like a UFO researcher once said) "If it's a hoax it sure ain't crude." I'm old enough to remember research before there were search engines, the internet, and so on. It took some work to put it together. (My best guess is someone trying to force the government's hand on this.)
I agree with your position on MJ-12. Put them in the fake category and burn them.
My question is a general one. What percentage of the so-called government UFO documents are really real in your opinion? The number of real documents seems to be very low (minus Project Blue Book and Grudge) and most of them just give a passing reference to UFO.
Y'know, if he was trying to make it sound more plausible he would have said Manzano Base or Site Able as the Air Force and AFSWC referred to it.
That he didn't and said Sandia Base instead speaks volumes in terms of credibility (as if a bad case of Stolen Valor isn't enough) since Sandia Base, Manzano Base and Kirtland were all managed separately until the mid-70's and Sandia's always been pretty visible, whereas Manzano was not and still is not. Where are you going to stash UFO parts, at a place that pretty much anyone could go walk into or a place with double electric fences and heavy access control?
I mean it's a moot point anyway, the Q areas inside the mountain aren't that big and were very busy with warhead maintenance and assembly until Plant 3 opened. Plants 1 and 2, which are actually inside the mountain itself, were both open by December 1950. The so-called "Colonel" is full of crap. If you ask me Private/"Colonel" probably didn't even know that it existed and figured Sandia sounded high tech and high security enough to pass muster, which it probably would to people without an in depth knowledge of how the nuclear weapons enterprise worked at that time.
It seems, that those associated with AAWSA/AATIP are into this MJ 12 stuff.
Yesterday on C2C Eric Davies spoke of successfull crash/retrievals in roswell and Del rio Texas.
A couple of months ago a member of TTSA mentioned that they have authenticated a leaked document as a real goverment document. I took a look on it. It is not a MJ 12 document per se , but it mentions CIA MJTWELVE consultations.
Are they sure it's not a typographical error for MKTWELVE? CIA had a large number of Special Access Programs related to biological and psychological operations that began with MK in the 60's and 70's, MKULTRA being the most well known.
Zak:
Probably the Aquarius document. It belongs in the trash can like all the other 'leaked documents'.
Alternatively: It is time the UFO community created a special museum or library where enthusiasts could go and see the large pile of 'UFO junk' (including any alleged actual hardware) that has been produced since the dawn of the UFO age 70 years ago. They might even consider an admission charge.
One other bit of information -- CAP went from brown to blue uniforms in about 1973.
Thanks never knew that the delivery Rio crash eas fake I always thought the mj 12 document by was fake. The government would not let a document get out like that
Post a Comment