It’s absolutely true that most of my research and writing has focused either on either political assassinations or issues of national security, including how the two can become intertwined in terms of crisis response – a subject examined in my book Surprise Attack.

So where do UFOs come into either topic area, and why did I do a book on them (admittedly they have been a long term personal interest of mine). The reason is simple – in terms of both  Cold War history and national security, they illustrate some of the most fundamental practices, and pitfalls, of what is known as strategic intelligence (sometimes referred to as “threat and warnings”) intelligence.

A study of UFOs, beginning during World War II and continuing to the present, provides a perfect platform for exploring how various elements of the intelligence community work in terms of collections, analysis, and assessment – as well as how they interact with the bureaucracy that drives decision making on any issue of national security.  That’s really quite important because generally speaking the system is far more complex and does not work at all like most of the public thinks it does.

That lack of understanding intelligence community operations creates many problems with all sorts’ subjects, including a tendency to drift into “conspiracy” when in many instances the real issues have to do with systems, career/departmental positioning, and even office/agency politics.

My UFO book (Unidentified / The National Intelligence Problem of UFO’s) deals with the historical involvement of the military services, intelligence agencies and the FBI with UFO reports – primarily from military and law enforcement personnel. That involvement is actually very well documented and provides a totally different view of internal communications and a very serious response, in direct contrast to public statements on UFOs. Beyond that I go into an extended illustration of how a practice called Indications Analysis can be used to evaluate long term patterns of UFO activity – focusing on the U.S. Atomic Warfare Complex.

If you are interested in the subject, you might want to take in a recent interview that I did with Chuck Ocelli on the book – it’s part of his ongoing series on my research:

Hancock Collection Unidentified

Next Thursday he and I will be doing another session on national security, focusing on Creating Chaos, my book on political and hybrid warfare.  We will be talking about the evolution of political and cyber warfare in the 21st Century, the total dysfunction of the current American War Powers Act and the failure of the American Congress to address legislation dealing with political warfare, cyberwarfare and increasingly deniable hybrid warfare.

In that regard I just can’t get my mind around the fact that we have, year by year since 2014, moved further into a new era of cold warfare and remain effectively in denial about it (certainly in terms of Congressional action) for the practical purposes of funding, and more importantly legal authorizations for defensive actions.  

16 responses »

  1. M says:

    Why do you put an apostrophe in UFOs? It is incorrect. Apostrophes are only used in the context of a possessive word in reference to the noun which I do not believe is your intention here. Please correct that it makes you look rather silly.

  2. larryjoe2 says:

    Certainly wouldn’t want that….corrected…

    • M says:

      Sorry I didn’t mean to sound rude, I’m just a grumpy ex-English teacher. Apostrophe would only be used in case of a possessive noun in the case above it’s a straight-forward plural. In the case of a plural possessive the apostrophe would be placed after the s as in UFOs’ . Please forgive my rudeness and carry on I enjoy your writing and look forward to following your work.

      • larryjoe2 says:

        You are absolutely correct and I appreciate it, Sometimes I do things like that with no thought at all (obviously). Other times I actually do think about punctuation and, as my wife describes it, that leads me into my own world – one that with a dozen books in print has relentlessly challenged a number of editors…sigh.

        In this instance at least, if I had actually looked at what I had written I would have at least known better.

      • M says:

        Absolutely true. You are focused on the CONTENT first and foremost, as you should be! Leave the punctuation and grammar to the editors! I love to see the UFO/UAP topic taken seriously and covered intelligently by people such as yourself.

  3. larryjoe2 says:

    Thanks, its is certainly a challenging subject – made even harder now by the confusion over drones vs. UFOs. I do have hopes that the two current research projects I’m involved with have potential because they are historical in nature and don’t get wrapped up in any one individual sighting. That was the downfall of the Air Force Blue Book project and may be the same with what the Navy is doing now – I certainly hope that someone in the intelligence community is doing a strategic analysis but if so its certainly not visible at this point.

    Its also noteworthy that the Navy is out front with the contemporary incidents and the Air Force, NORAD and Homeland Security are managing to duck all the most recent reports of unidentified objects over the continental U.S.

    • M says:

      Agreed, I wonder sometimes what it takes to get the average person (and governmental agency) to “wake up” and finally accept the reality of the unknown/unexplained phenomenon already so clearly experienced by so many over so much time. Which evidence and whose testimony will it finally take to sink in? I also agree the consistency of reports and sightings, shapes, behaviors etc over time has been one of the most fascinating and credible aspects of the subject. There’s just so much consistency over time, and some of the strangeness in the reports actually makes me believe it even more. The logic-defying aspects seem to contradict what our imagination or lies would dictate were the reports fake. I wonder if the real “conspiracy” is rather one of dismissing, ignoring, avoiding and denying rather than really covering-up. Or maybe not… I had a family friend, now deceased, who told me at the end of his life he’d investigated some cases for Blue Book medically, he was a medic who served in the Air Force during and after the war in Korea and he was absolutely convinced based on cases he looked at that something extraterrestrial was real. He mentioned one case in particular where a young boy was found on a country road after going missing who reported being abducted. The boy had previously been diagnosed with some type of terminal illness (I forget now what it was, if he’d specified it, perhaps leukemia) and apparently post-abduction was found to be cured. Our friend told me “to this day” (early 2000’s) we have no cure for that. It was the case that convinced him beyond a doubt. I only had one convo w him about it as he didn’t talk much and never told anyone as he had few friends and was not in touch w family anymore. He was shocked I’d even heard of Blue Book. Wish he were still around to know more.

  4. larryjoe2 says:

    The fundamental problem with the military approach to investigations is actually very understandable, given their tasking if an incident cannot be traced to an adversary or confirmed as a threat then in the end it is simply unidentified and doesn’t really deserve anything further. If you look at the notice describing the closure of Blue Book it was strictly in terms of no threat or damage being confirmed. The military always has more than it can handle just dealing with known threats.

    Given that orientation, UFO reports tend to be dealt with one at a time, not studied strategically, with a view to long term patterns. The search is always for new technology, especially that possessed by a defined adversary.

    With the military tasked in that manner and career oriented scientists knowing the risk of he subject its been a Catch 22 situation. The trials of Dr. James McDonald provide an illustration of just how risky matters can be for career academics:

    Click to access mcdonald.pdf

    • M says:

      Absolutely – that’s why Avi Loeb’s recent book and advocacy for mainstream science opening its mind was so refreshing, regardless of Oumuoamua’s origin, though sadly his main thesis seemed to get lost or dismissed in the narrow discussion of proof for extraterrestrial technology.
      But you’re right, so much of government is focused on the triage of immediate consequences and threats the longer view does seem to be a luxury or decadent indulgence to them.

  5. M says:

    Btw your Creating Chaos topic couldn’t be more relevant at this time. I hope you have included analysis of Chinas “little blue man” fishing fleet militia they are currently using expertly to seize control of reefs and islands around Taiwan and the Philippines. It’s the perfect plausible deniability operation in-action and one to which, I’m afraid, nobody has an effective solution to and which could quite readily hand them a swift victory in Taiwan.

  6. larryjoe2 says:

    Actually I covered the “little blue men” and China’s use of an armed fishing reserve fleet in my more recent book In Denial. I explore the new tactics of covert and deniable conventional military action that are being applied by China, Russia and Iran. All of them at least initially more effective(and hugely less expensive) than American practices during the Cold War. China’s little blue men are extremely difficult to deal with, as are Russian civilian military “contractors” such as the ones in central Africa and Libya.

    • M says:

      I think China can run figure-eights around Russia and Iran combined. It scares me. We place so much emphasis on mega projects swinging for grand-slams they just keep hitting consistent doubles. And they don’t mind losing a few hundred thousand troops at it. I don’t know how we counter that.

  7. larryjoe2 says:

    Perhaps my biggest worry is that both Russia and China are highly focused and both appear to have actual strategies in place….strategies that allow them to act in a very coherent manner and economize on military spending in terms of new equipment, training and personnel.

    Up to now we have been so mired in operational commitments in the Central Command region that between daily missions and nation building we have squandered huge amounts of money – allowing both adversaries to sink all there spending into weapons systems and military infrastructure.

    That appears to be turning around now but its a horrible legacy. Our only option is to revisit creating an actual strategy and reallocate our spending around that, along with getting a handle on the competition among our services. Way too many general staff officers and spending conflicts – at this point as far as I can tell only the Marine Corps really knows what it needs to be and is re-configuring itself and its assets towards reality.

    It says a huge amount when the latest Air Force war games don’t even include our most advanced operational assets like the F-35 and rely on notional next generation aircraft and weapons. How does that even make any sense?

    • M says:

      I know! That F35! Boondoggle is one for the history books. The f22 was fine. We got so mired in Afghanistan and Iraq we really lost our way, and to no productive result or advantage – perhaps given the current situations in Ukraine and Taiwan even worse than we understand at the moment. The last 20 years have really revealed the limits of power – I think we had a big advantage when those limits were obscured rather than revealed. I cringe when I think of all the good we could have achieved by now if these three powers used that money and intellectual capitol for science and human advancement instead of warfare. Americawise it’s hard to keep changing course when you’ve got so much invested in each direction each time because you always need to be #1. We are like a huge oil tanker while they get to be little tug boats and frigates. It’s easy to see how the UAP issue gets relegated to the back burner.
      The Marines have always been scrappy it seems to me, adaptable because they had to be and pride themselves on it. I think we need to relearn the lessons from Viet Nam, stop being bogged down by all our tech and equipment and learn to fight barefoot with 10 bullets and a scarf. China has the discipline for this and the population doesn’t mind working 7 days a week I just don’t see how we can compete w that long term.

  8. larryjoe2 says:

    There is a real risk in letting technology tempt you away from the issues of the very real challenges of raw numbers and of “sustainability”. But there are signs the services are swinging back to realty, the recent decisions on the F-15E, on using big bombers and even transports as armory aircraft and on the use of missile and drone swarms bodes well. You need good weapons but you also need a lot of them and they need to actually work in combat….work at least well enough. The biggest sin is to go into combat with weapons that don’t perform, the Navy’s torpedoes early in WWII are a prime example.

    It was getting tied down into two decades of ground warfare where there was really no chance of a clear “win” that drained us and led to the temptation of thinking you were accomplishing something when you weren’t. The public still has no idea of how many bombing and air strike missions the Air Force has been relegated to and still is – simply from being tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. That just does not get covered, its much like the sacrifices in Laos, real warfare, losses and a huge outlay – far outside our ability to control life on the ground, as much as it might appear desirable.

    • M says:

      Absolutely. You know your business. We have to leverage our allies more too we can’t keep carrying all the weight. Not to mention how stronger more robust alliances would send a louder message of deterrence too. I worry we can be easily goaded into another Afghanistan at the drop of a hat by proxy and get distracted once again. Iran certainly gets this so does Russia. I don’t see how America can do it alone any longer to the extent it has. And that damned Russian pipeline to Germany needs to be cut off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s