In 1950, Wilbert Smith, a radio engineer, working for the Department of Transport for the Canadian government was invited by the U.S. government to work on a classified program involving geo-magnetics. The premise presented to him at the time was a possible linkage of this new technology with ‘flying saucer’ technology.  In a memo he described how the Canadian Embassy staff had confirmed that a “concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush” on the application of geo-magnetics to flying saucer propulsion. Dr. Bush, during World War II headed the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), through which almost all wartime military R&D was carried out, including important developments in radar and the initiation and early administration of the Manhattan Project. He was listed as an original member of the Majestic 12 group in the Eisenhower Briefing Memo document. If the MJ-12 documents can be authenticated by the Comptroller General of the GAO, as required under recently approved legislation of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, it will confirm the existence of this secret group.

In November 1966, the University of Colorado was awarded a contract by the USAF to do a study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Dr. Edward Condon was the director, Dr. Robert Low was the project coordinator, and Dr. Roy Craig was the chief investigator. The study would include the assistance of Air Force UFO Investigating Officers and stipulated, “Every effort will be made to keep all UFO reports unclassified. However, if it is necessary to classify a report because of method of detection or other factors not related to the UFO, a separate report including all possible information will be sent to the University of Colorado.”

At the outset of this study, it became clear what was expected. Dr. Low wrote an initial memo to the study team that stated: “Our study could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.”

In March 1967, the Malmstrom AFB incidents involving the disabling of twenty nuclear missiles during UFO encounters occurred. Some details of those incidents were received by Condon’s investigator, Dr. Roy Craig. However, when Craig confronted the Malmstrom UFO Officer, Lt. Col. Lewis Chase, he denied any knowledge of the incidents but admitted there was an on-going highly classified investigation of those events and referred Craig to USAF headquarters for information. However, after consultation, with Dr. Low, the decision was made to not follow-up on any request for information about these incidents. As a result, these incidents were not further investigated or included in the final Condon Report.

After the termination of the Condon study, on December 17, 1969, the USAF publicly issued a “Fact Sheet” on UFOs and terminated their official UFO Project Blue Book. They declared a discontinuance of their UFO investigations based on the Condon study. They specifically included this statement in the Fact Sheet: “No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security.” At a minimum the documented events that occurred at Malmstrom AFB facilities in 1967 involving the disabling of nuclear weapons during UFO encounters, belies this statement. To date, the USAF has not rescinded nor corrected this Fact Sheet.

If an organized group exists and has been able to maintain secret operations in the evaluation of information, act on that information, recover craft, assimilate new technology, transfer that technology, share information and cooperation with other nations, effectuate some mutual communications on UAP incidents in real time, it would be an organization with extensive capabilities and efficiencies. Such a secret group within government operations would need reliable funding sources, operate facilities and equipment to perform data collection and analyses, have liaisons with military and other intelligence agencies, and liaisons with civilian aerospace contractors. Each of the above organizational capabilities are certainly possible within our governmental structure.

The apparent model for keeping secrets relies on the proposition that governments can operate more efficiently and effectively within a large, durable bubble of secrecy. Part of this model is that there are bubbles within bubbles, known as compartmentalization. Compartmentalization keeps secrets contained in tight, need-to-know groups. The essential principle of this model is that secrets are necessary for protection from or gain an advantage against our real or perceived enemies.

There are also benefits that accrue to the holders.  Secrets create power and influence. That power and influence can become inherently corruptive. When that happens, the people lose control and access to government. That is a detriment to a free and democratic society. The people must live by the decisions made by a select few. 

Because of the internet and social media, we are now in a new stage of the information age. People are hungry for real and ‘true’ information. We have seen the results of too much secrecy, resulting in the proliferation of conspiracy theories and ‘fake news’ all because the people were kept in the dark through the excesses of secrecy.

To effectively fight excessive secrecy in government, we need Whistleblowers. We need people to step up, risking their reputations and livelihood to inform us about these secrets. This will happen when the burden of secrets becomes overwhelming. When people who hold secrets realize there is a greater interest – that of the people over that of government bureaucrats, more secrets will be revealed.

The secrecy apparatus of governments is large, complex, and cumbersome and cannot be completely controlled. As has recently been demonstrated, governments cannot continue to ‘short-change’ or ‘sanitize’ the truth. The public wants a complete story of UAP, as it is, irrespective of how that truth might be perceived.

Ultimately, the basic tenet of a democracy of the people’s need to know what their government is doing to meet their duties and responsibilities for the people, must prevail.         

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: