Thursday, January 05, 2006


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.)


Paul Kimball said...


Well done.


Mike said...

How long does it take for a guy
to speak up and clarify his
history in the military (if, in
fact, he did have such a history
culminating in the rank of
Brigadier General)? Okay, maybe
several days is not enough time?
Mike Jamieson

shawnharolds1347 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tarq said...

In the beginning of the interview, The Disclosure Project video shows a picture of Stephen Lovekin in uniform. It's a only headshot but if we are trying to figure out which 'branch' he claims to be from perhaps someone with knowledge of these things can figure out what organization the unifrom uniform he's wearing belongs to.

..Or someone can just ask him I suppose. I don't think anyone has directly asked him publicly about any of this.

Tarq said...

Here are the documents for Stephen Lovekin...

Tarq said...

Documents for Stephen Lovekin can be found here.

Svein said...

Steven Greere answer this here:

Mike said...

Stephen Greer's angry rant is
completely off the mark and
inappropriate in claiming that
Randle defamed and attacked Lovekin. Greer needs to bone up
on his reading comprehension. In
fact, Randle's speculation that
Lovekin may have served as a BG
in some outfit that was a supplemental or auxillary part of the NC National Guard appears to
be accurate (if that grainy list
identifying the roster is accurate). Randle first presented a high profile inquiry on July 27, 2005 re: Lovekin's background at ufo updates. So what gives with
Greer going off on Randle like that? Who is he kidding?

Mike Jamieson

Truthtemplar said...


Truthtemplar said...

What Pk seems to forget is that this man has stated in front of the worlds press, that he would stand in front of the the US congress and repeat everything he has told The Disclosureproject under oath. Now i'm sure the people (we all know who including PK)who want this sort of daming information withheld from us lowly peasants would take BG Lovkin up on his offer and expose him as a freud. Inturn blowing a massive hole in the side of The Disclosures
Project's ship and thus restoring the status quo we are the only intelligent lifeforms in the universe. Also there are no unelected goverments and secert army's. Correct me if i'm wrong! this is the first time ever that a whistleblowers credentials have dissappeared!

Jo said...

To Kevin -- in you, I see a kindred spirit.
I want the facts, too!
So much is being misrepresented, nowadays...and I champion those who put themselves on the frontlines, and ask the serious questions!

I hope you'll never backdown to the imposter, the fraud, and the charlatan!
There are enough of them, especially in the field of UFO study!

Stand your ground, Kevin!
And know that the real McCoy rarely finds a need to attack those who question his claims.
He need only to calmly produce the evidence.
If it were me, in question...I'd not only gladly do so, but...I'd also thank you, for giving me the opportunity! :)
-- Jo

gl2 said...

To return the subject to the basics: We now assume Lovekin did military duty, and, as he says, if he was at Camp David in 1960-1, as a sergeant, then that would be the prime credential in question. The North Carolina guard may be something he lists, as does CSETI, but CSETI was trying to bolster the status of its witnesses in 2001. Greer is from North Carolina, himself, and may see its guard as a legitimate rank, of some sort. So, the bottom line is proximity to Eisenhower, yes or no.

Historian said...


I admit I am coming late to the discussion and I apologize if I am writing in haste and error. As an Eisenhower historian, something does not sound right here. I can't speak to his military career but it seems to me it raises some clear questions that need to be answered for credibility.

1) Was the person in the video a member of the military in the period in questions? If so, then:

2) Is there actual evidence that he served within the White house communication system. Saying it is so, to me is meaningless. IS there a roster? Photos of him and Ike, etc.

3) If the evidence is there that he was in legitimate uniform, serving in the White House, did he have legitimate contact with Ike beyond simply service? There are detailed logs of who attended meetings, etc.

4) Eisenhower's doodling UFO's really has no credibility that Ike knew or shared information with him. Ike did doodle. A lot. And not just when he was in meetings he disliked. He did doodle for a variety of reasons, habit as much as anything else. And after looking through the massive collection of Ike documents at his Presidential Archive, I can't remember a single UFO doodle. Some outstanding ones on JFD, etc.

Ok, so why is this important? If he lies about his rank (sorry but he has to know that is not a legitimate rank in a real military service) then his credibility is 0. If he was never in contact with Ike then anything relating Ike to the issue of UFO's lacks legitimate support. And to be honest, Ike didn't reveal things he didn't want revealed. Even at the height of the attacks on Ike regarding the space race, the missile gap and bomber gaps, Ike did not reveal anything that was not already openly there. Despite huge pressure to do so. I highly doubt he would have talked to a signalman regarding anything like that.

Sorry, but I have to be honest, something smells here and despite all my attempts to find documents relating to him and Ike, even ones posted to prove his case, nothing appears.