X Descending (16 page)

Similarly, in 2002 Myrabo co-authored a book titled
Lightcraft Model LTI-20 Technical Manual
⁴²
featuring cover images that appeared earlier on the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s TAVD web site. The subtitle of the book is “An intriguing preview of the 2025 Space Command’s LTI-20 Lightcraft”. The accompanying text describes the “presently fictitious” vehicle as one designed for a critical U.S. Space Command mission. And what is the mission? To carry space commandos half way around the world and lurk in the atmosphere undetected.

My concerns about this technology being co-opted and distilled for military weapons research have recently led back to questions about what was happening at Kirtland AFB and who came calling on Paul Bennewitz. When Richard Doty visited Paul at his home he was accompanied by a man named Jerry Miller (allegedly at the request of the National Security Agency, though evidence is lacking). The AFOSI document describing this meeting (see Attachment C) identified Miller as having been with the Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (AFTEC). AFTEC was organized in 1974 to direct and oversee operational testing of emerging aircraft and systems.
⁴³
Later redesignated as AFOTEC (“O” for Operational), it is an Air Force independent test agency responsible for operationally realistic testing of new systems being developed for Air Force and multi-service use.
⁴⁴

Miller himself is something of an enigma, and whether or not the NSA was behind his visit to Paul’s home, the fact that Doty took Miller along as an expert says something in itself about the seriousness of the situation. More recently, information has come to light that Miller’s connections went far beyond AFTEC to the highest levels of defense intelligence. According to Greg Bishop, who met with Miller while writing
Project Beta
, Jerry R. Miller’s name appears in a 1981 Defense Intelligence Agency personnel list as head of Weapons and Systems Division (DT2) of the “Directorate for Scientific and Technical Intelligence”.
⁴⁵
Perhaps he holds positions in both agencies, though the mission of the DIA goes far beyond simple operational testing and evaluation. The DIA mission, as described on their web site, is to “Provide timely, objective, and cogent military intelligence to warfighters, defense planners, and defense and national security policymakers.” The DIA is a combat support agency and is long known to be a significant member of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Information is limited however, on just what the “Directorate for Scientific and Technical Intelligence” does, or the DT2 division. By all accounts, Miller’s background and apparent high-level connections to the military and national intelligence agencies suggests that what Paul Bennewitz had caught on film was important enough to require the attention of someone with Miller's "weapons and systems" expertise. Miller is reportedly retired now but still lives in the Albuquerque area. To this day, he remains one of the more shadowy connections between military and weapons development, intelligence agencies, and the glowing disc-shaped vehicles filmed by Paul Bennewitz.

No one would deny that the same technological advances that improve our lives and society should be used to protect us whenever possible. While there is always an open exchange of ideas and research between military and private sectors, classifying information is often anathema outside the military where researchers know all too well the axiom "publish or perish". No technology that stands to offer such profound benefits should be cloistered away because of its weapons potential. What is the point of keeping something like this from the public? Surely there is more that can be done with it than simply militarizing or weaponizing it.

Some time ago the National Security Agency released a document titled
UFO Hypothesis and Survival Questions
(See Attachment G). This paper, apparently a 1968 draft, points out several possible outcomes when one civilization encounters another that is more technologically advanced. Even though the scenarios may seem frightening, the author of the paper spells out several methods for people and cultures to survive and maintain their identity. What seems very clear from this paper is that the methods listed—complete national solidarity, full and honest acceptance, and a correct but friendly attitude—require all people be fully involved. This paper, written many years ago and only released as a result of the Freedom of Information Act, is a strong indictment of the denial and ridicule that has shrouded this phenomenon. Is there a healthy mentality inside our national services if they deny to the public that this phenomenon exists and yet maintain a document that makes it very clear that the people
must
be told what the truth is—and
must
accept it?

“When one door closes another door opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us."

—Alexander Graham Bell

Beyond the evidence, and beyond questions about why our military and government may be hiding the facts from the public, is what I see as the most complex issue of all. How do we face, and what do we do about, a reality that forces us to the limits of our collective comfort zone? Trying to change long-held beliefs, even with strong and compelling evidence, has been difficult throughout history. With ridicule always such a powerful deterrent, how can our best scientific minds openly and honestly examine the phenomenon if they are afraid that being associated with it will ruin their professional reputations?

Throughout my years studying this subject, most of the researchers I have met have generally had the same underlying goal, usually expressed as “proving the phenomenon is real”. But even with compelling evidence, proof can be very subjective. It is tied to interpretation of the evidence, and that interpretation may be skewed completely by what someone wants to believe. If what we believe effects what we think, then how can we be sure what we truly know? In the Encyclopedia Britannica is a wonderful example from the branch of Philosophy known as Epistemology that illustrates the complex relationship between knowledge and belief:

Suppose that someone believes there will be an earthquake in September because of a dream he had in April and that there in fact is an earthquake in September, although there is no connection between the dream and the earthquake. That person has a true belief about the earthquake but not knowledge. What the person lacks is a good reason supporting his true belief. In a word, the person lacks justification for it. Thus, in Theaetetus, Plato concludes that knowledge is justified true belief.

Although it is difficult to explain what justification is, most philosophers accepted the Platonic analysis of knowledge as fundamentally correct until 1963, when the American philosopher Edmund L. Gettier produced a counterexample that shook the foundations of epistemology: Suppose that Kathy knows Oscar very well and that Oscar is behind her, out of sight, walking across the mall. Further, suppose that in front of her she sees walking toward her someone who looks exactly like Oscar; unbeknownst to her, it is Oscar’s twin brother. Kathy forms the belief that Oscar is walking across the mall. Her belief is true, because he is walking across the mall (though she does not see him doing it). And her true belief seems to be justified, because she formed it on the same basis she would have if she had actually seen Oscar walking across the mall. Nonetheless, Kathy does not know that Oscar is walking across the mall, because the justification for her true belief is not the right kind. What her true belief lacks is an appropriate causal connection to its object.

Things become even more difficult when you confront long held or preferred beliefs.That people will cling to some beliefs, no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, can seem as great a mystery as the UFO phenomenon itself. The 'fight or flight' response seems to apply to more than just physical danger, just as many a psychiatrist can testify that all the help in the world can be useless if a person does not want to change. The most any of us can ever do is present evidence and try to do it in the most effective way possible, but very often the evidence is only half the battle. People not only have to be
willing
to accept it, they must be
able
to accept it.

Hal Puthoff, in his 1996 paper
CIA Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute
, described encountering exactly this type of resistance. Even though the CIA had been sponsoring the research, he wrote:

As a sociological aside, we note that the overall efficacy of remote viewing in a program like this was not just a scientific issue. For example, when the Semipalatinsk data described earlier was forwarded for analysis, one group declined to get involved because the whole concept was unscientific nonsense, while a second group declined because, even though it might be real, it was possibly demonic; a third group had to be found. And, as in the case of public debate about such phenomena, the program’s image was on occasion as likely to be damaged by an overenthusiastic supporter as by a detractor. Personalities, politics and personal biases were always factors to be dealt with.
⁴⁶

In James Bamford’s recent book
Body Of Secrets
he reveals a comprehensive NSA study undertaken by Robert J. Hanyok that led to troubling questions of how early in the 1940s Allied intelligence might have become aware of the Holocaust. Hanyok concluded that Allied communications intelligence would have picked up indications of the anti-Jewish laws in their intercepts, but, in the end, the focus was almost always on military rather than diplomatic traffic. “The real problem,” he concluded, “was not interpreting the intelligence,
but the attitude by the Allies, and the rest of the world, that the unthinkable was actually happening
.”
⁴⁷
(Emphasis added) Clearly the difficulty they had in believing that something so unbelievable could actually be happening affected those with direct evidence that it was.

A simpler, but instructive, example came in a conversation I had on the subject of beliefs with someone very devout. In the course of the conversation, and only to make a point, I asked the question, “If I were able to give you conclusive proof that God did or did not exist, and it could go either way, would you want to know?” The answer was very telling, “Yes... but I might not believe you anyway!”

This is an issue I have had to think seriously about. Is there any point in telling the truth about what I know if people will selectively believe what they want? How can any of us be sure of what we believe if we are not willing to weigh our beliefs against real evidence? It would be ironic, to say the least, if after spending thousands of dollars and many years to earn a Ph.D. in a scientific field, that the scientific rigor we impress on our brightest minds might actually render them less able to realize what this phenomenon suggests. How many experts in Galileo’s day looked through his telescope at Jupiter and its moons and still steadfastly maintained that they could not see it?

What if, as many people suspect, the skepticism and ridicule that practically suffocates serious interest and discussion about this phenomenon is one way the truth is being controlled. Fear of ridicule becomes both a reason and an excuse not to deal with it. Make people afraid and they are more easily controlled—and fear of ridicule has certainly suppressed discussion of the UFO phenomenon. A prime example of this actually came during my telephone conversation with Leik Myrabo in June of 2004. In the course of our conversation, he happened to mention that during interviews he gave, if an interviewer ever brought up the subject of unidentified flying objects, he would stop the interview immediately. In fairness, who could blame him if he did not want to risk tainting his research by being associated with delusional UFO enthusiasts or having to respond to wild speculation? Still, what he saw in Ray Stanford’s images is not wild speculation, so, under the circumstances, it may have seemed safer not to risk awkward questions.