I'm not a political animal at all but I do know that disinformation is a tactic employed by Governments to steer the public along a desired road. A good way to get UFO revelations under control is for the (powers that be) to create an advocate or organization that is researching the subject and is demanding it's disclosure. This procedure creates a focal point behind which the general public gather allowing the agenda of (said Governmental decoy) to be suitably tailored in an ongoing pseudo case -file denial cycle. I have my suspicions of some leading individuals and organizations that could be decoys and wonder if any of you have come to any conclusions. Your nominations please................
UFOs: Dis-Information
- Thread starter greywolfe
- Start date
Kamalktk is absolutely correct.
I read in that vague half remembered wish I was a hoarder who kept every book I have ever read way, that George Adamski may have been either a CIA agent, or a tool of said CIA.
Roswell was a ham fisted attempt at disinformation, you have to get the cover story out first guys!
One of the channel 4's keep showing the documentary where a CIA agent admits UFO's were useful cover for the U2 and ASR71 spy planes.
Rendlesham? wasn't there an American intelligence officer who told the girls in a pub the story?
Disinformation about disinformation, I suspect the activities of the CIA during the fifties revealed the merit of useful idiots, or patsies,and was developed into a fine art by November '63.
This post will self destruct in 5 seconds.
I read in that vague half remembered wish I was a hoarder who kept every book I have ever read way, that George Adamski may have been either a CIA agent, or a tool of said CIA.
Roswell was a ham fisted attempt at disinformation, you have to get the cover story out first guys!
One of the channel 4's keep showing the documentary where a CIA agent admits UFO's were useful cover for the U2 and ASR71 spy planes.
Rendlesham? wasn't there an American intelligence officer who told the girls in a pub the story?
Disinformation about disinformation, I suspect the activities of the CIA during the fifties revealed the merit of useful idiots, or patsies,and was developed into a fine art by November '63.
This post will self destruct in 5 seconds.
IamSundog
Not insane
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 3,426
And yet it is a [fairly well] documented fact that CIA operatives infiltrated UFO groups in the 60s and 70s and engineered their demise. And e.g. Richard Doty's purported activities in the Bennewitz affair and with Bill Moore and Jaime Shandera certainly fit a pattern of a campaign to disinform and discredit UFO researchers. I don't have any candidates for government mole among the current crop of researchers because I pretty much despair of any substantive progress in "UFO research" being even possible anymore - the whole field is a hall of mirrors in which nothing and no one can really be trusted. A situation I believe the intelligence guys have pretty much engineered.kamalktk said:
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,692
I agree - the waters are so muddied these days, and "evidence" of any quality so ambiguous and/or easily faked, that I doubt the Intel agencies even have to bother any more. Ufology has been eating itself for ages now. That said, it's a cyclical thing - 15, 20 years ago it was all greys and abductions and Streiber and Santilli, pop culture got saturated, then lost interest and walked away. The bubble burst, leaving shreds and debris to be picked over by hoarders, and now is (IMHO) just about dormant, ticking over quietly. It'll come out of hibernation in time. Ghosts are on their way down too, and Cryptozoology and Earth Mysteries in the ascendant.
Give it a while, there'll be a flap somewhere, and Nick Pope and Tim Good will be on the Breakfast Time sofa again.
Give it a while, there'll be a flap somewhere, and Nick Pope and Tim Good will be on the Breakfast Time sofa again.
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,545
stuneville said:
Given that just about everyone on the planet now carries a camera around at all times, it would be difficult to plant the blurry images we used to see in the old days. However, there is one area where 'they' still have control over the images and those are from orbiters, space telescopes and the like.
Which is why I think the next flap won't feature objects in the sky but anomalies outside our atmosphere - like the moon vapour trail we saw recently. The closer and more accurately we can look, the more the phenomena has to move further away to remain indistinct.
However, a more likely scenario sees the planting spurious UFO disinformation backfiring as eager hackers search through Government systems and files for the 'truth'. Who knows what else they'll uncover?
It sems pretty simple to propose a scenario where intelligence services used UFO's as a cover for military activity for example.
The problem then becomes one of increased interest, something the cover story was trying to avoid!
An ideal patsy would seem to be someone who has some credibility,to spread disinformation but can then be easily discredited if the need arises.
Ever heard of anyone like that? :?
The problem then becomes one of increased interest, something the cover story was trying to avoid!
An ideal patsy would seem to be someone who has some credibility,to spread disinformation but can then be easily discredited if the need arises.
Ever heard of anyone like that? :?
Thanks for that, intriguing.
I was thinking more of someone like Bob Lazar, but also the 'source' who often appears at some point in a ufo investigation, it's usually at that point the investigation goes through the looking glass into that vague world of anonymous phone calls,evidence that disappears, confirmation/denials, and people not being who they claim to be.
In the case of the British people, imho they are the best informed people on the planet, all they have to do to get at the 'truth' is to assume the exact opposite of what the government and sundry authorities are telling them!
I was thinking more of someone like Bob Lazar, but also the 'source' who often appears at some point in a ufo investigation, it's usually at that point the investigation goes through the looking glass into that vague world of anonymous phone calls,evidence that disappears, confirmation/denials, and people not being who they claim to be.
In the case of the British people, imho they are the best informed people on the planet, all they have to do to get at the 'truth' is to assume the exact opposite of what the government and sundry authorities are telling them!
smokehead said:
The problem with people like Bob Lazar filling this role is that it is reasonably straight forward to cast doubt on parts of their back-story, in essence the foundation which they can claim to be an SME (i.e his education), that is if you as a government agency want to be the ones who do the building up and breaking down of the individual. There is no point if Joe Public with access to Google can do it, whereas someone like Nick Pope can actually be traced to the Agency he claimed to work for, i.e the RAF UFO desk.
smokehead said:...In the case of the British people, imho they are the best informed people on the planet, all they have to do to get at the 'truth' is to assume the exact opposite of what the government and sundry authorities are telling them!
If only it were that simple, There is often nothing exact about the info the authorities put out.
I never understood the role of Nick Pope,we spend billions on radar installations and the military, but when an unknown craft apparently penetrates UK airspace, it is the responsibility of one bloke with a desk and a phone :?
Perhaps BUFORA are correct, by their estimation 95% of UFO reports can become IFO's after being properly investigated.
Which to me, suggests that Nick had the job of only dealing with what was considered fringe reports, anything with any substance was no doubt thoroughly investigated.
Having said that, it is a fact that Jenny Randles was only able to obtain a copy of the Haut memo from an American UFO investigator after months of obfuscation and denial from the MOD (paid for by the British taxpayer of course).
There is a conflict here between what I see as the default position of secrecy for secrecies sake,and the more overt position of someone like Nick, I have to say that I think anyone who thinks the British public has a 'right to know' perhaps on the basis they are paying for it all, is likely to discover that the powers that be treat that ideal with the utmost contempt.
I suspect the intelligence and security services are layered, with official and unofficial loose concepts only, not so much a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the right hand not knowing what the right is doing!
All the best
Perhaps BUFORA are correct, by their estimation 95% of UFO reports can become IFO's after being properly investigated.
Which to me, suggests that Nick had the job of only dealing with what was considered fringe reports, anything with any substance was no doubt thoroughly investigated.
Having said that, it is a fact that Jenny Randles was only able to obtain a copy of the Haut memo from an American UFO investigator after months of obfuscation and denial from the MOD (paid for by the British taxpayer of course).
There is a conflict here between what I see as the default position of secrecy for secrecies sake,and the more overt position of someone like Nick, I have to say that I think anyone who thinks the British public has a 'right to know' perhaps on the basis they are paying for it all, is likely to discover that the powers that be treat that ideal with the utmost contempt.
I suspect the intelligence and security services are layered, with official and unofficial loose concepts only, not so much a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the right hand not knowing what the right is doing!
All the best
smokehead said:
Umm... regardless of his current preoccupations, Nick was never an investigator, he was in charge of an "Information" desk based in an RAF building, and had a few staff around him. They basically fielded calls that were requesting information, and they were where people who rang up to report UFO's were redirected to.
smokehead said:There is a conflict here between what I see as the default position of secrecy for secrecies sake,and the more overt position of someone like Nick, I have to say that I think anyone who thinks the British public has a 'right to know' perhaps on the basis they are paying for it all, is likely to discover that the powers that be treat that ideal with the utmost contempt.
I suspect the intelligence and security services are layered, with official and unofficial loose concepts only, not so much a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the right hand not knowing what the right is doing!
All the best
The thing you have to wrap your head around is that all data generated within the MOD/RAF is considered at the very least Confidential and covered the the OSA.
So a note to staff indicating the results of the inter-departmental darts match can be in the same category as the minutes of a planning meeting. Once you have this type of structure in place, it is not just the data that Ufologists are interested in that gets obfuscated, it's everything.
This approached is somewhat self defeating because it leads to people thinking "Aah, they must be hiding that data because..." and makes them dig all there harder, and when nothing more is found (because sometimes there isn't anything) it confirms a cover-up or dis-information in peoples minds.
Sometimes there are cover-ups, sometimes there is dis-information, but I think more often than not there are just layers upon layer of Civil Servants and Bureacracy.
Never a truer word spoken, because of my circumstances I may be entitled to a rebate on my council tax, I have had to send off the same details twice already and am confident a third request will be coming soon :headbutt:
Another interest is real crime and their tragically dysfunctional paper system hindered the Yorkshire police in the yorkshire ripper investigation, it is even suggested that it may have needlessly caused deaths as Sutcliffe was in the system and should have been picked up on much earlier.
Who knows how many conspiracy theories have been based around a simple case of misfiling?
Another factor is the wilful destruction or intentional losing of evidence, for personal reasons, aka covering your a**.
Going back to the yorkshire ripper case for example we see that detective Andrew Laptew interviewed Sutcliffe and felt he should be looked at closely.
Despite being discouraged by DCI Dick Holland, he felt so strongly that he wrote a note to that effect and stapled it to the interview form.
The Bayford enquiry found the interview form,but no note,although the staple holes were clearly visible.
Incompetence, or getting rid of potentially embarassing evidence?
Generally I'm not big on conspiracy,at least not before the fact,but I certainly believe in it afterwards, the problem for investigators being what they 'uncover' may not have any relation to what they are alleging, but is merely evidence of someone protecting themselves.
All the best.
Another interest is real crime and their tragically dysfunctional paper system hindered the Yorkshire police in the yorkshire ripper investigation, it is even suggested that it may have needlessly caused deaths as Sutcliffe was in the system and should have been picked up on much earlier.
Who knows how many conspiracy theories have been based around a simple case of misfiling?
Another factor is the wilful destruction or intentional losing of evidence, for personal reasons, aka covering your a**.
Going back to the yorkshire ripper case for example we see that detective Andrew Laptew interviewed Sutcliffe and felt he should be looked at closely.
Despite being discouraged by DCI Dick Holland, he felt so strongly that he wrote a note to that effect and stapled it to the interview form.
The Bayford enquiry found the interview form,but no note,although the staple holes were clearly visible.
Incompetence, or getting rid of potentially embarassing evidence?
Generally I'm not big on conspiracy,at least not before the fact,but I certainly believe in it afterwards, the problem for investigators being what they 'uncover' may not have any relation to what they are alleging, but is merely evidence of someone protecting themselves.
All the best.
Cochise
Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,474
IamSundog said:
I'm with you. I used to be sufficiently interested in UFO's 40 years ago to be a member of a group and to actively go UFO hunting. Not that I ever believed they were Martians, it was just interesting. But now it's an impossible, and I've transferred my interest to other forms of high strangeness. Although what I've learned from that is that many of the bizarre personal encounters that are not UFO-related could actually be seen as the same sort of experience as some UFO encounters but with a different cultural context. (Or, the other way round - some encounters with 'extra-terrestrials' could also be interpreted as encounters with elves or pixies).
In the end, one is thrown back on one's own intellectual resources for lack of a neutral environment in which to discuss these things - but this board comes close!
Ed Glinert wrote in the entertaining East End Chronicles that at an early meeting of the Communist party in London, police and intelligence agents actually outnumbered the audience.
What is clear to me is that any activity that is percieved as a threat to the state, leaving the concepts of activity and state for others to define based on personal experience,will attract the interest of the security services.
Covertly funding a particular protest group for example,may seem at odds with their objective, but is probably the best and most cost effective way of discovering the identities of would be troublemakers.
The trail back is never directly to a desk,but always involve ambiguous,shadowy people,leaving unsatisfying unanswerable questions about who they really worked for.
Except this is a kind of footprint that becomes clear after a while, and any particular mystery that at some point reveals the kind of people I'm talking about, are imho a lighthouse beacon indicating intelligence involvement.
All the best.
What is clear to me is that any activity that is percieved as a threat to the state, leaving the concepts of activity and state for others to define based on personal experience,will attract the interest of the security services.
Covertly funding a particular protest group for example,may seem at odds with their objective, but is probably the best and most cost effective way of discovering the identities of would be troublemakers.
The trail back is never directly to a desk,but always involve ambiguous,shadowy people,leaving unsatisfying unanswerable questions about who they really worked for.
Except this is a kind of footprint that becomes clear after a while, and any particular mystery that at some point reveals the kind of people I'm talking about, are imho a lighthouse beacon indicating intelligence involvement.
All the best.
Krepostnoi
Increasingly disenchanted
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2012
- Messages
- 4,325
Can anyone stateside comment on how common a surname Doty is over there? I have a tenuous connection to someone with that surname who says her father served in the USAF. Could it be..?
But before I jump in feet first, it would be useful to know how high the odds are. Also, while I gather it is important to have a very large pinch of salt on hand, is there any purported biographical/service record available for Richard C. Doty? I have a rough time period and geographical location for one posting of my contact's father, so it would seem prudent to cross-reference that (not to mention correlate ages between him and my contact) if possible before I blunder any further in. Even as little detail as just his home state or year of birth would be a useful starting point.
But before I jump in feet first, it would be useful to know how high the odds are. Also, while I gather it is important to have a very large pinch of salt on hand, is there any purported biographical/service record available for Richard C. Doty? I have a rough time period and geographical location for one posting of my contact's father, so it would seem prudent to cross-reference that (not to mention correlate ages between him and my contact) if possible before I blunder any further in. Even as little detail as just his home state or year of birth would be a useful starting point.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
Doty isn't a commonly encountered name, but it's a valid one. I've been acquainted with a family and a separate individual named Doty in two different US locations years apart.
As of 2015 Richard C. Doty was alleged to have a Facebook account listed under the name Rick Doty.
As of 2015 Richard C. Doty was alleged to have a Facebook account listed under the name Rick Doty.
Austin Popper
Emperor of Antarctica
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,504
- Location
- Colorado, where the gold is still elusive
It's not terribly common, but I have known a few people with that surname. For a while, I assumed they were all related, as they lived in the same general part of the same state, but it turned out there were two distinct families with apparently no connection.
I'm afraid that is the limit of my help here, as I have no biographical information about the infamous Richard Cranium you mention. Now if you will excuse me, I must go out into the snowy, dark night in order to spit on the ground.
I'm afraid that is the limit of my help here, as I have no biographical information about the infamous Richard Cranium you mention. Now if you will excuse me, I must go out into the snowy, dark night in order to spit on the ground.
Krepostnoi
Increasingly disenchanted
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2012
- Messages
- 4,325
@EnolaGaia, @Austin Popper, thank you both. Information received suggests I'm barking up the wrong tree. I always knew it was a long-shot...
Reverend D
Vague Apparition
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,255
- Location
- Glasgow
For anyone interested in disinformation and Mr Doty, Mark Pilkington's book Mirage Men is well worth reading. Very interesting book and one of my favourites on the whole topic of flying saucers.
Frideswide
Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 16,310
- Location
- An Eochair
Oh shine a light..... I've been using it to mean sweet, cute, appealing! Somebody find me a hole to die in......:mute:
GNC
King-Sized Canary
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Messages
- 33,634
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Min Bannister
Possessed dog
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2003
- Messages
- 5,998
Are you thinking of toty for wee?
Frideswide
Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 16,310
- Location
- An Eochair
RustyShackleford
Fresh Blood
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2019
- Messages
- 24
Agree. Mirage Men is a fascinating read. I'd also recommend Pilkington's documentary of the same name. For anyone interested in the Bennewitz affair and Ufology in the 1980s, it is essential viewing. The only thing missing, and not for the want of trying, is an interview with Bill Moore. It's a shame, as I'm sure there are plenty of things that Moore has not yet revealed about the 'goings on' during that period.
