Over the last week or so there has been a raging controversy over my posting of the information about Stephen Lovekin, his status as a brigadier general, his work as part of the White House Army Signal Agency, and his claims of information about UFOs from President Dwight Eisenhower. I have received many nasty emails, several that were critical, but made their points without resorting to personal attacks, and I have even received a few that were supportive.
But the real point here is that the complaint I have is not with Lovekin, but with how he was presented to the world as a UFO whistle blower. I could have handled this in a more professional manner and basically left him out of it. As near as I can tell, he was careful in what he said about his military service and that the source of his commission was never fully explored. In other words, and as you can read in the preceding article, he is a brigadier general in the North Carolina State Guard Association. These state guards are strange beasts and there is no universal protocol for them. A few, California and Ohio spring to mind, have some sort of state recognition while others seem to be little more than clubs for those interested in the military. A few, maybe most, do serve a purpose as a source of volunteers during natural disasters. To some, these distinctions are unimportant and to others they are.
In the article that this replaces, I detailed my investigation into the source of Lovekin’s commission and then speculated that it might be in one of these state guards. In that respect I was correct and I should have left it right there. However, I was working under the impression that Lovekin had suggested he was an officer at his time with the White House Army Signal Agency and this turns out to be incorrect. Because of this, I wrote, in part, "Once again, if we read Lovekin’s law biography carefully, we find no time for him to have been trained and then serve as an Army officer, complete his under graduate training and then attend law school. He received his law degree in 1964. He would have had to graduate from high school in 1957 or 1958, complete OCS which, in that time frame lasted six months, serve his military term, attend college and then go on to law school, all in six or seven years."
What is really embarrassing here is my suggestion that we read his law biography carefully and then I go on to make an elemental mistake. HAD I read it carefully, I would have noted that he received his law degree in 1967, not 1964. As an officer in the White House, it would have been tough. For an enlisted man, not. Clearly he was able to complete his Army training, be detailed to the White House, finish his tour and then enter college. Three years after graduation from college, he received his law degree. Oh, if I have only taken my own advice and read it carefully.
There is a second paragraph in the article that this replaces that I shouldn’t have written. Or rather, a sentence that should have been modified. I wrote, "This all suggests to me that the ‘whistle blower’ testimony offered by Stephen L. Lovekin is of little use in developing any policies related to UFOs or extraterrestrial visitation…"
Which those of a skeptical bent would take given the nature of the testimony meaing, simply, if UFOs are not extraterrestrial, then the testimony of Lovekin can be ignored because the suggestions of extraterrestrial involvement are clearly in error. It’s a sort of circular argument. UFOs aren’t extraterrestrial and therefore any information suggesting they are is somehow in error.
I’m not saying this, that there is no extraterrestrial visitation, and my conclusion about Lovekin’s value was based on the source of Lovekin’s commission. The best I can say about it is that I might have overstated the case. Or for those who support Lovekin and his testimony, I was wildly overstating the case.
I also wrote, "There is no corroboration of his many claims of military service as a high-ranking officer," which is true, but I should have written that the many claims, rather than his claims… Well, he did say he was a general and that implies high-ranking military service. We can argue if his commission in the North Carolina State Guard Association qualifies. At this point, I think I’ll just leave that alone and let everyon conduct his or her own research into the value of these state guard associations.
Then I drift off into the real speculation and write, "[N]o verification of his positions in the White House…" While it is true when I wrote that I had no verification, the statement is a conclusion not based on fact. Clearly Lovekin did work in the White House Army Signal Agency, and there is no way to spin this mistake. I should not have written it. I guess I was blinded by the lack of success in finding any record in the Army, National Guard or Army Reserve of an officer named Lovekin. Had I searched a little harder, I might have learned that it was a claim that others made for him, but not one he made himself.
Finally, I wrote, "[A]nd little reason to believe he was witness to the things he claims." Well, again, that question is open because we seem to lack corroboration for his claims. But then, it could be that others who witnessed the same thing have decided not to talk about it, or didn’t hear the same things, or interpreted them in a different fashion.
I suppose I could say that those making the extraordinary claims should be prepared to provide evidence for them, but then, is this Lovekin’s fault? Has his comments been taken out of context or embellished by the enthusiasts for his information? Certainly possible.
The best conclusion, based on what we know now, having seen some documentation, having explored the source of his commission, and having reviewed some of the transcripts of his testimony (some of that offered by Grant Cameron and Dave Rudiak) is that the question is still open.
Although I have replaced the original column, I have left the comments attached to it intact because they link to a site that provides documentation for those who would like to see it.
(NOTE: I came to the realization that unlike a mistake in a book, magazine or newspaper, I did not have to live with it. I could fix the situation simply by taking down the article. I also felt that an explanation was required, so I replaced it with this. I could say that the original article served its purpose by shaking everything loose and we now have a more accurate picture, but the reality is that I simply drew too many conclusions from the information I had. I should have been careful and I should have left Lovekin out of it.)
