tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post1373231856918051557..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: MJ-12, The Unholy Thirteen and RoswellKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46427993354614830882014-09-27T09:18:27.028-07:002014-09-27T09:18:27.028-07:00One aspect of the Roswell incident that is often o...One aspect of the Roswell incident that is often overlooked is that the memo of General Twinning in September 23, 1947 to the commanding general of the Army Air Force, he specifically states in paragraph h (2) that one of the considerations that mitigates against the evidence of the reality of the flying disks is “The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these subjects.” <br /><br />It seem clear to me that of the time of this memo the position Gen. Twinning was that he had no crash recovered evidence. Since this was two hand a half months after Roswell it seems to me that clearly contradicts the reality of a spacecraft crash at Roswell. Or, at a minimum that the commander at Wright-Patterson was not cleared for that information or that he lied to the commander of the Air Force to protect the compartmentalization of a recovery project. On the face of all of the other facts this seems absurd.<br /><br />Another reason that I tend to disbelieve the reality of a spacecraft crash at Roswell is that ever since that UFO researchers has focused on Roswell, the Air Force disinformation campaign Richard Doty and associates, have played up the Roswell crash. It seem unlikely they would do so if it was real but rather it was a great way to lead UFO researchers down a blind alley if they know it wasn’t. <br /><br />Now this doesn’t mean that that have been no crashes since that time. The Sarbacher and Walker statements would lead one to believe that there had been a crash recovery by 1950. Perhaps this recovery was conducted by another agency of the government than the Air Force. Vandenberg shut down SIGN for some unknown reason and the Air Force went into a major UFO denial mode until the radar incident in 1951 which led to the Ruppelt phase of Gudge/Blue Book. Note that Vandenberg had been DCI before becoming Chief of Staff of the Air Force. It could be that the CIA and the DoD R&D types had the physical evidence of the implied crash and wanted the Wright-Patterson types out of it because their activities were giving the subject credibility.John's Spacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08241028519082710381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-3260806828250692182014-09-02T20:35:02.969-07:002014-09-02T20:35:02.969-07:00Anthony, one last thought.
Since I originally wro...Anthony, one last thought.<br /><br />Since I originally wrote that last posting, it has occurred to me that the radial symmetry I was describing may be more simply described as a classic dipole field.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40174741570862386262014-09-02T12:04:50.429-07:002014-09-02T12:04:50.429-07:00Thanks LarryThanks LarryAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17872197900178528212014-09-02T10:40:23.628-07:002014-09-02T10:40:23.628-07:00Anthony:
There is, of course the famous 1966 Burk...Anthony:<br /><br />There is, of course the famous 1966 Burkes Flat case, from Australia, in which the car's headlight beams were bent and a classic rainbow spectrum was seen beneath the craft. This was discussed back in May at Rich Reynold's blog. <br /><br />I wrote:<br /><br />".....all the reported optical effects can be explained by localized changes in the index of refraction of light in the space surrounding the object or objects.<br /><br />Taking for example, the bending of the headlight beams toward the object: this implies that the index of refraction in the space surrounding the object is increasing in the radial-inward direction. The amount of bending is predicted by Snell’s law and is proportional to the ratio of the index of refraction in the near vicinity of the object to the index of refraction in air (far away from the object). That the witness reported the bending of the headlight beams becoming greater as his car drew closer to the object says that the gradient in the index of refraction increases significantly on the spatial scale of the car and the object (≈ 20 ft). <br /><br />Next considering the light show in the region of space between the two ovals: it is significant that the witness reported seeing the “light tubes” as having all the colors of the rainbow (i.e., a complete spectrum). In other words, the region between the two ovals acts like a prism and disperses any light in this region, into its component wavelengths. This requires the index of refraction in the region to be constant and numerically greater than that of the surrounding region.<br /><br />So, light rays that originate from outside the region between the two ovals are bent around the region by a radial gradient in the index of refraction while light that either originates from inside the region or manages to traverse it is dispersed into its constituent colors by a constant index of refraction (as in raindrops creating a rainbow).<br /><br />Now consider the reported behavior in which one oval seems to descend on the other and the two merge into one. This sounds suspiciously like a mirage which, again, is dependent on there existing a strong gradient in the index of refraction, but this time the gradient is symmetric about a horizontal plane of reflection. I suggest that there was actually only one object with its mirror image and that the apparent motion of the two objects merging was actually an illusion caused by a time-changing index of refraction gradient.<br /><br />So the model emerging here is of an oval object (which could have been a lenticular disk seen in profile) creating a field around itself that is both radially symmetric and symmetric about a plane of reflection. The field, which has been proposed to be identical to Paul Hill’s “acceleration field” used for propulsion is identical to Puthoff’s “Polarizable Vacuum” method of engineering the space-time matrix of Einstein’s General Relativity theory (http://www.gravitycontrol.org/pdf/jbisZPE.pdf)."Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64800117164380596442014-08-31T08:01:06.071-07:002014-08-31T08:01:06.071-07:00Larry -yes, a very tightly controlled field could ...Larry -yes, a very tightly controlled field could well be an explanation. I'd feel more comfortable with a specific testable prediction though. I was looking at cases to see if I could find any evidence of optical refraction around the UFO, for example. There are some such as Malmstrom, but not many. A very small spatial extent to the field could be a factor in that.<br />I guess I'm just thinking it's best to keep an eye on other options too.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37087117339715825202014-08-30T22:47:29.382-07:002014-08-30T22:47:29.382-07:00Anthony,
I too am puzzled by the very large dyn...Anthony, <br /><br /><br />I too am puzzled by the very large dynamic range of remote effects reported by UFOs. Sometimes they affect objects (such as the surfaces of bodies of water 100s of meters below) and sometimes they show no effect on an object 1 meter away.<br /><br />I surmise that the spacetime warping may be taking place essentially at the surface of the UFO. There appear to be cases such as the forestry workers in Oregon who reported an Elk stuck to the underside of a UFO, where the "acceleration field" operated over a spatial scale of centimeters.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-44136600947621292542014-08-30T00:27:35.994-07:002014-08-30T00:27:35.994-07:00Larry
I agree with your comments regarding Hill...Larry<br />I agree with your comments regarding Hill's work and more recent GR approaches to UFO propulsion. This does seem the most likely avenue to explore.<br />The GR related theories for UFO propulsion are pretty dominant in the English speaking world whilst the French seem much more inclined to build on work in the 1980s by Petit which argued for a MHD approach. In a more modern form this has turned into models based on the idea of vacuum thrusters.<br />One thing I've noticed is that if you restrict the study to only very high reliability cases only a very few show the sort of effects that might be suggestive of spacetime modification. The effects show up in close encounter cases and can be taken as consistent with many of the overall performance characteristics of UFO as Hill and later Puthoff show ( e.g the 2010 paper in JBIS by Puthoff, also available from the EarthTec website), but there isn't much of the bending trees and pushed cars etc in the very high reliability cases.<br />Interestingly both spacetime modification and vacuum thrusters are under active investigation at this time so we may learn more. Alas the former depends on a model that uses M theory and SUSY models seem to be having a hard time at the moment, but we shall see.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5196077064034787842014-08-29T23:02:32.651-07:002014-08-29T23:02:32.651-07:00The apparent "cancellation of gravity/inertia...The apparent "cancellation of gravity/inertia" is intrinsic to a GR explanation. In other words, if space/time is locally curved, objects move along that curvature without experiencing any inertial forces, the same way--by analogy--that a satellite moving in an orbit around a planet is in "free fall".<br /><br />In other words, accepting the GR explanation for UFOs gives you all of these non-Newtonian phenomena for free.<br /><br />Exactly what causes the space/time, GR warping is where the debate is. The ZPF model is one proposed explanation, but not the only one.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58745648898621503992014-08-28T20:23:26.493-07:002014-08-28T20:23:26.493-07:00We still have to consider the apparent cancellatio...We still have to consider the apparent cancellation of gravity/inertia in the way at least some of these objects move and perform 90 deg turns and instant accelerations, often at very steep angles.<br /><br />Paul Hill's book is one of my first in my modest collection, which includes Sturrock, Hynek, Haines, Vallee, Hastings, Keyhoe, Sanderson, etc.; mostly researchers with a scientific background.<br /><br />Puthoff may be on the right track with the Zero Point Fluctuation model. It's going to be a while to iron out theory, before engineering an application.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12705067146246472654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28598062456259022632014-08-28T11:57:03.346-07:002014-08-28T11:57:03.346-07:00Part 2
I personally now consider Paul's book f...Part 2<br />I personally now consider Paul's book foundational for the physical understanding of UFOs.<br /><br />Paul used the term "acceleration field" to describe the kind of interaction that UFOs would have to have with their environment in order to produce the observed effects. Paul was educated before the modern era in which Einstein's General Relativity (GR) is taught in undergraduate Physics curricula, otherwise I think he would have recognized that his "acceleration field" is an attempt to interpret in Newtonian terms what Einstein was describing as the warping of the space/time metric. <br /><br />Puthoff (for example) has shown that the array of bizarre effects that one would expect to observe in the vicinity of a GR object corresponds to a large extent with what has been reported by UFO witnesses.<br /><br />So, much of the phenomenology reported in the vicinity of UFOs can be explained by the idea that whoever builds them has figured out how to do space/time warping on a human scale and with mass/energy concentrations small enough to fit into a 30 meter diameter disc. The mass/energy concentration required could still easily be at nuclear or thermonuclear levels, however. I've been considering whether the presence of a space/time warp might not enable the production of nuclear levels of energy in a very concentrated volume. In other words, if you've figured out how to warp space/time, that very ability might make controlled thermonuclear reactions easier to achieve and maintain.<br /><br />In any case, I have come to believe that UFOs are basically very highly mobile high-energy physics experiments. One could easily imagine that they contain high powered magnets, accelerators, and such, but who knows? They may operate on the basis of an interaction yet to be discovered, and that could be LHC connection.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-14434091694727737122014-08-28T11:54:41.210-07:002014-08-28T11:54:41.210-07:00Part 1
My friend's remarks were not specific e...Part 1<br />My friend's remarks were not specific enough for me to draw any conclusions about micro black holes, vs. some other subatomic entity being involved. The implication was simply that some experiments that are possible to do using the LHC would create some knowledge base that would allow someone to make an inference about how UFOs might work. Micro black holes are one speculative phenomenon that might have that characteristic, but necessarily the only one.<br /><br />In general, the apparent fact that some UFOs that leave traces (Socorro, Rendlesham) are very much heavier than normal flight vehicles was noted by the NASA aerospace scientist, Paul Hill, in his book "Unconventional Flying Objects: a Scientific Analysis". To put this in concrete terms, Paul estimated that the Socorro object weighed as much as if it were a balloon filled with water (a density of 1.0). By contrast, aircraft typically have an average mass density of around 0.1--about one tenth the density of water. This is why an aircraft that ditches into the water will actually float quite high as long as it does not break apart on impact and until it fills up with water. Submarines have a density of around 1.0--some times a little more and some times a little less--that's why they can submerge and then re-surface.<br /><br />Paul used this analysis to conclude that UFOs were built more like submarines than like airplanes or spacecraft. Paul was a very intelligent and knowledgeable aerospace engineer and he knew that there is no combination of conventional aerodynamics and propulsion that can make a submarine fly. This is why he specifically used the term "unconventional" in the title of his book. His fundamental and most important single conclusion was that UFOs are not simply someone else's airplanes or spacecraft--they must operate on some principle other than those embodied in conventional aerospace engineering.<br /><br />His second observation (not unique to him) was that a lot of observational data indicate that UFOs interact with their environment through one or more fields. They can create detectable effects on objects at a distance--tree branches, water, clouds, etc.--without directly touching them. <br /><br />Like Newton, he figured that if UFOs were surrounded by one or more fields that could affect visible objects, those fields should also affect invisible objects, like air molecules. He constructed a reduced-order mathematical model of a radially symmetric "acceleration field" arrayed along an axis of symmetry extending in front of and behind a UFO and showed that this field would interact with the fluid surrounding the UFO in a totally inviscid manner. A body in motion with this type of field around it it would predict a number of phenomena that have been observed around UFOs, such as no aerodynamic noise from turbulence, suppression of sonic shock waves, suppression of aerodynamic heating, and resonant humming.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19209729731318481422014-08-24T23:00:06.155-07:002014-08-24T23:00:06.155-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-11929770699253887442014-08-23T00:14:15.990-07:002014-08-23T00:14:15.990-07:00Larry,
Interesting discussion about the LHC since...Larry,<br /><br />Interesting discussion about the LHC since my mention of micro black holes possibly being involved with the ufo phenomenon in my last post. The LHC has the capacity to create them and this fact has created a stir relating to what happens after they're created--do they fall through the planet, oscillating to the center of the Earth and begin consuming it from the inside out?<br /><br />I was going to mention this as a follow-up to my last post but the discussion veered into a different direction. In the Robert Schroeder book, "Solving the UFO Enigma", he theorizes that the propulsion of ufos involves the creation and control of micro black holes and that a device similar to the LHC is in fact the mechanism.<br /><br />If so, all we have to do is 1) miniaturize an LHC to the size of a large saucer, and 2) devise and engineer an appropriate power plant.<br /><br />While this may seem a nigh impossible task, let's remember how quickly computer technology evolved in the last 60 years. Perhaps the bigger obstacle would be engineering the power necessary to operate it. <br /><br />Reports of Faraday rings around craft (Stanford, Meessen) in the atmosphere indicate extremely powerful magnetic fields and these might only be by-products of the source. Other indications from Ray Stanford's early instrumented data shows that the light output alone from a cigar-type object exceeded the electric output of major cities, again these may only be by-products of the propulsion devices.<br /><br />I note that in the Socorro and the Rendlesham events, the trace evidence of the landing pods indicated a very heavy device.<br /><br />These observations of high energy output clues point in the direction of nuclear or fusion power at least.<br /><br />Larry, Does any of this make any sense to you based on your friend's remarks?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12705067146246472654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72969795083922570132014-08-21T15:35:46.394-07:002014-08-21T15:35:46.394-07:00CDA:
My friend gave me this information in a shor...CDA:<br /><br />My friend gave me this information in a short conversation very recently, and the conversation got interrupted. Then he moved out of the area, from the West Coast to the East Coast. I have not been able to resume the conversation yet, but I am trying to set up a time with him as soon as I can.<br /><br />My understanding is that all his beliefs around this are based on information he was given explicitly, but informally by his employer. He is not a "UFO person" by any definition of the word. No Stan Friedman, no Timothy Good, no "conspiracy community" connection at all. I would be surprised if he ever read a UFO book in his life.<br /><br />He is a mechanical technician type, hired to build high energy physics experimental detectors, by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. His educational background is such that he never would have made a connection between UFOs and high energy physics unless someone with a superior educational background made the connection for him. Since I have worked on nuclear and high energy physics projects in the past that's actually one of the reasons he contacted me.<br /><br />Funding was from USA, flowing through (I believe) Department of Energy. All the member nations of the LHC make contributions to the overall project based on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. So, if France, for example, contributes a hardware element to LHC, they pay for it. In this case, the US is contributing a detector array, so the US is paying for it. This gives someone--behind the curtain--the opportunity to make sure the detectors are designed in such a way as to return the desired data.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27000423631823089312014-08-21T06:54:59.868-07:002014-08-21T06:54:59.868-07:00Larry:
Re your anonymous friend who is working on...Larry:<br /><br />Re your anonymous friend who is working on an experiment connected to the Large Hadron Collider. Why should he believe that his project is receiving 'deep black funding' to enable his project to understand how UFOs work? <br /><br />Does he know of any connection between UFOs and nuclear physics or particle physics? Perhaps I should reword the question: Has this anonymous friend read any of the papers by Stanton Friedman, aka the UFO physicist? Has he, by any chance, also been reading the numerous books by Timothy Good, and others, on conspiracy-related stuff?<br /><br />And where is this 'black funding' coming from, i.e. which country or countries?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84910161129808090672014-08-21T01:49:04.770-07:002014-08-21T01:49:04.770-07:00Larry...I think we are in complete agreement on th...Larry...I think we are in complete agreement on this ( with a minor proviso that I'm much less sure about pre 1947 than Roswell itself).Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35871026027930539172014-08-20T19:15:04.279-07:002014-08-20T19:15:04.279-07:00Anthony: If the US national security apparatus re...Anthony: If the US national security apparatus really did come into possession of crashed flying disk parts in 1947 (or, as I think likely, a few years earlier) I think it is self-evident they would have used the same game plan that had proven so effective in developing nuclear weapons, at about the same time. This is because the strategic considerations would have been about the same. As soon as Uranium nuclear fission was announced in late 1938-early 1939, it was evident to those with the appropriate intelligence, that a door was opened to a new reality. It was widely thought that the first party to get through the door would very likely possess an unanswerable military advantage that could terminate the war in favor of whichever side possessed it and impose a new world order of political power. (And I would say that judgment was basically correct.) From that consideration it immediately followed that it was necessary to not only develop the weapon, but do so before anyone else. So, heroic expenditures of the highest class scientific and engineering effort were justified. Once it was realized that the development path of a bomb had to go through certain technological gates (e.g., Uranium isotope separation; Plutonium production in breeder reactors) it was self-evident that those gates were actually high value targets for sabotage. So extreme secrecy of operations was justified in order to avoid such sabotage while at the same time, attempted sabotage of the opponent’s critical targets was highly incentivized (as happened, for example at the Norsk Hydro plant in Telemark, Norway).<br /><br />All of those considerations would have applied equally as well to the serendipitous recovery of an unconventional flying disk in 1947 as to the serendipitous discovery of Uranium fission in 1938 and, to me, explains the intensity and duration of the secrecy around the subject.<br /><br />There is one crucial difference, however. When Uranium fission was discovered, its functioning was entirely inside the bounds of scientific knowledge of the time and the ability to experiment with it was entirely inside the bounds of the technology of the time. Within six months after the discovery of Uranium fission was published, Enrico Fermi was already designing his first reactor capable of sustaining a controlled chain reaction, and Robert Oppenheimer had convened an informal summer study group at his Berkeley lab in which they worked out all the basic parameters involved in building a bomb (how much Uranium was needed, how fast it had to be assembled, how much energy it would yield, etc.) As we have discussed before, in the context of the Roswell “memory foil” I think a flying disk utilizing General Relativity (if that’s what they’re doing) would be at least one and possibly two or more scientific and technology revolutions ahead of where we were in 1947. Immediate results would not be, and probably were not expected. <br /><br />Over the years I have developed my own set of private informants whose identities I protect. One of them recently told me he worked on an experiment connected to the Large Hadron Collider, and has come upon specific and concrete indications leading him to believe that his project is covertly receiving deep black funding in order to help understand the theoretical basis for how UFOs work. I have no particular reason to disbelieve him and this would indicate that—70 years later—we are still trying to fill in the scientific understanding, and still making progress.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21451310532240716592014-08-20T03:40:22.902-07:002014-08-20T03:40:22.902-07:00Larry you make a good point abouttge way the most ...Larry you make a good point abouttge way the most significant programmes were managed and I think you are on the right lines. My interest in the RDB side if things is that's were what little firm or almost firm data we have leads there...but I agree overall policy control would have to be above that.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67857087840917980012014-08-19T21:39:57.577-07:002014-08-19T21:39:57.577-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47531809010223562242014-08-19T21:39:39.246-07:002014-08-19T21:39:39.246-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32418020944513687742014-08-19T19:27:56.605-07:002014-08-19T19:27:56.605-07:00Sarbacher confirmed the involvement of V. Bush wit...Sarbacher confirmed the involvement of V. Bush with UFOs in a letter to Steinman. Thus, the likely source for Smith's info on Bush is still Sarbacher.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85838061595247016702014-08-19T19:22:40.122-07:002014-08-19T19:22:40.122-07:00I stand corrected about it not being Sarbacher who...I stand corrected about it not being Sarbacher who mentioned Bush's name.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53851939068653301392014-08-19T18:54:08.752-07:002014-08-19T18:54:08.752-07:00CDA:
Any evidence to support the belief that Keyh...CDA:<br /><br />Any evidence to support the belief that Keyhoe and Smith conversed and suspected about Vannevar Bush?<br /><br />Does Keyhoe mentions V. Bush in his 1950 or 1953 books?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87967966106122075762014-08-19T15:11:14.980-07:002014-08-19T15:11:14.980-07:00Larry:
"I’m guessing you might be making the...Larry:<br /><br />"I’m guessing you might be making the assumption that because Sarbacher mentioned Vannevar Bush by name,....."<br /><br />Sarbacher did NOT mention Bush by name, to Wilbert Smith anyway. Look at Smith's handwritten notes again. Bush's name does not appear therein. <br /><br />Smith obtained Bush's name from an unknown informant. Nobody has ever established who this was. <br /><br />Keyhoe maybe?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4453826881623593322014-08-19T13:58:50.718-07:002014-08-19T13:58:50.718-07:00David:
When you write: “….the Smith/Sarbacher/Eri...David:<br /><br />When you write: “….the Smith/Sarbacher/Eric Walker testimony indicates a control group within the DOD's Research and Development Board (headed by Vannevar Bush) operating in 1950 and probably before (Walker allegedly said he was aware of it since 1947)….” <br /><br />I’m guessing you might be making the assumption that because Sarbacher mentioned Vannevar Bush by name, and because Bush was known to be the head of the RDB when it first came into existence, that the Flying Disk problem must have been part of the RDB’s responsibility. I strongly question that assumption. <br /><br />Given the composition of the group that Exon described (1) it could only have been formed at the direction of the President and (2) it included participation from, but was above, the military. My reading of history says this is the same generic pattern that the US followed in dealing with all the other national security technological challenges that emerged in the period of time around WWII which were big enough to have multi-agency or even societal importance. This list would include large scale decryption/code breaking, invention and exploitation of the millimeter wave magnetron for radar, discovery of Uranium fission, electronic warfare, strategic rocketry, low-observables (or “stealth”), and overhead reconnaissance. In all these cases, once the strategic importance of a particular technological reality was accepted, an oversight committee would be formed, including representation from, but higher than, all the affected communities. The oversight committee would have responsibility for setting overall strategy, assigning sub-tasks to individual agencies and services, coordinating budget decisions, etc. <br /><br />In my opinion, if a president was persuaded that the Flying Disks were real—and especially if pieces of them had been recovered and could be reverse engineered—there is no question that that fact would have national level strategic importance. I don’t see any way that finding would have been allowed to be monopolized by any one specific agency or military branch. For this reason, I think the efforts of UFO researchers to locate the “control group” within the DOD or within the CIA or within the Air Force, or any other pre-existing organization are misguided. I think a Special Access program office would have been formed with the authority and responsibility to coordinate a national level response to the challenge. Membership within that tiny and exclusive club would have been determined by an individual’s ability to contribute and their demonstrated trustworthiness with high level state secrets. Once an individual is read into a Special Access community, they can stay active in it even if their “day job” changes (as Symington changed from Secretary of Air Force to Senator).<br /><br />Van Bush would definitely have been the logical choice to be involved in or lead, such an office, but its responsibility would have been much broader than that of the RDB. And we should keep in mind that it’s even possible that Van Bush could have been read into the program years earlier, in the FDR administration.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.com