by Michael E. Salla, PhD
Pre-publication version of
article published in
Nexus Magazine, vol 13:2 (Feb-March
2006): 55-60
from
Exopolitics Website
Introduction
In one of its first major policy changes after coming into power in
January 2001, the Bush administration signaled its intent to
withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty with Russia.
The ABM Treaty had been intended to prevent the deployment of
weapons in space and enjoyed major international support since its
ratification in 1972 by the Nixon administration. In a May 2001
speech, President Bush argued that the 30 year old ABM Treaty was
outdated and that the U.S. must formally move beyond its constraints
to deal with new security threats:
We need a new framework that allows
us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of
today’s world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of
the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the
present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No
treaty that prevents us from addressing today’s threats, that
prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend
ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in
the interests of world peace.1
The Bush administration gave its formal
notice to withdraw on December 13, 2001, and promptly withdrew six
months later. The Bush administration thus formally embarked on
realizing some of the goals of the Strategic Defense Initiative that
had first been promoted by the Reagan administration in March 1983.
Reagan had envisaged the development of space based intercept
systems that could be used to destroy large scale ballistic missile
attacks on the United States.
Reagan’s SDI floundered as the Cold War
wound down and the Democrat controlled U.S. Congress aimed to use
the anticipated ‘peace dividend’ to improve social programs.
Furthermore, many prominent scientists argued against the cost of
developing SDI’s futuristic weapons systems. In July 1999, the
Clinton Administration passed the National Missile Defense Act
calling for a more limited anti-ballistic missile system:
It is the policy of the United
States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an
effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending
the territory of the United States against limited ballistic
missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)
with funding subject to the annual authorization of
appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for
National Missile Defense.2
The Bush administration quickly moved to
formally deploying an antiballistic missile system as part of the
National Missile Defense Program.
In May 2005, the US Air Force formally requested permission from the
Bush administration for a national security directive so that it
could “secure space to protect the nation from attack”. The Air
Force request moves the Bush Administration closer to approving the
weaponization of space and sparking an arms race in space with the
US major strategic competitors, Russia and China.
These developments towards deploying
weapons in space received a surprising objection when a former
Canadian Defense Minister addressed a UFO Conference in Toronto. He
linked the deployment of space weapons not to possible ballistic
missile attacks by rogue nations or terrorist groups, but as a means
of targeting UFOs that were piloted by extraterrestrial visitors.
Paul Hellyer
and Opposition to the Weaponization of Space
On September 25, 2005, the Honorable Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian
Minister for National Defense gave a speech in Toronto addressing
the weaponization of space.3
For the 82 year old Hellyer, his speech reaffirmed his long standing
opposition to any governmental efforts to deploy weapons in Space.
While Defense Minister in the Lester Pearson administration from
1963-67, Hellyer had officially rebuffed initiatives from the
Johnson administration to approve an anti-ballistic missile defense
system. In a 2003 article he wrote:
“It is almost 40 years since U.S.
secretary of defense Robert McNamara asked me if Canada would be
interested in helping develop an anti-ballistic missile defense
for North America. I was able to say, “Thanks, but no thanks,”
which was the position of the Pearson government and one that I
fully endorsed.”4
During his 2005 speech, Hellyer also
addressed the UFO phenomenon and described his time as Minister for
Defense where the occasional UFO sighting report crossed his desk.
He claims to never have had time for what he considered to be a
“flight of fancy”, but nevertheless retained an interest in the UFO
phenomenon. While Minister for Defense, he was guest of honor at the
opening of the world’s first UFO landing pad at Alberta, Canada in
1967. He thought it an innovative idea from a progressive Canadian
community willing to pay for his helicopter ride, but did not give
much thought to UFOs as having serious policy implications.
Hellyer’s position on UFOs dramatically changed after watching the
late Peter Jennings documentary special, “Seeing is Believing” in
February 2005. Hellyer decided to read a book that had been idly
sitting on his book shelf for two years. Philip Corso’s,
The Day
After Roswell, sparked intense interest for Hellyer in terms of its
policy implications, and Corso distinguished service in the U.S.
Army and the Eisenhower administration.
Corso who reached the rank of Lt
Colonel, named real people, institutions and events in his book that
could be checked. Intrigued by the policy implications, Hellyer
decided to confirm whether Corso’s book was real or a “work of
fiction”. He contacted a retired United States Air Force General and
spoke to him directly to verify Corso’s claims. The unnamed General
simply said: “every word is true and more”.
5
Hellyer then proceeded to discuss the
“and more …” with the general and claimed he was told remarkable
things concerning UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis that
interplanetary visitors have been here since at least 1947. Hellyer
then privately asked a number of ‘officials’, some occupying senior
positions, about Corso, and again received confirmation that
Corso’s
claims were accurate.6
Finally convinced that the UFO phenomenon was real Hellyer decided
to come forward and publicly speak about some of the “most
profoundly important policy questions that must be addressed.”
Among the profound policy questions raised by Hellyer was the
designation by the U.S. military of visiting extraterrestrials as an
‘enemy’.
-
According to Hellyer, this had led
to the development of “laser and particle guns to the point that
they can be used against the visitors from space.”
-
It is this targeting of visiting
extraterrestrials that concerns Hellyer, and he asks “is it wise
to spend so much time and money to build weapon systems to rid
the skies of alien visitors?”
-
Hellyer poignantly raises the key
policy question: “Are they really enemies or merely legitimate
explorers from afar?”
-
Hellyer’s question raises profound
importance in understanding the relationship between visiting
extraterrestrial civilizations and the recent effort to deploy
weapons in space.
Significantly, Hellyer’s stated position
on deploying weapons in Space and opposition to the possible
military targeting of extraterrestrials is in stark contrast to the
man who initially convinced him of the reality of extraterrestrial
visitors: Lt. Col. Philip Corso.
Colonel
Philip Corso’s Support for the Strategic Defense Initiative &
Weaponization of Space
In his book,
The Day After Roswell, co-authored with
William Birnes,
retired Lt. Col. Philip Corso declared that extraterrestrials were
abducting civilians, violating U.S. airspace, and destroying
aircraft sent to intercept them. Corso viewed the extraterrestrials
as a direct threat to U.S national security and declared:
“For over
fifty years, now, the war against UFOs has continued as we tried to
defend ourselves against their intrusions.”
7
Elsewhere in the Day After Roswell,
Corso describes the national security threat posed by UFOs and the
need for a military weaponization program to target and shoot down
UFOs conducting such violations. He specifically championed
President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Corso
believed that SDI was the appropriate response to extraterrestrial
intrusions, and that the US and USSR both knew what SDI’s true
purpose was:
We [US & USSR] both knew who the
real targets of SDI were… It was the UFOs, alien spacecraft
thinking themselves invulnerable and invisible as they soared
around the edges of our atmosphere, swooping down at will to
destroy our communications with EMP bursts, buzz our spacecraft,
colonize our lunar surface, mutilate cattle in their own
horrendous biological experiments, and even abduct human beings
for their medical tests and hybridization of the species. And
what was worse we had to let them do it because we had no
weapons to defend ourselves.8
A number of UFO researchers have claimed
that these bellicose statements towards extraterrestrial visitors
were introduced by Corso’s co-author William Birnes, and that Corso
was not as anti-extraterrestrial as
The Day After Roswell suggests.
That is not accurate as a reading of Col Corso’s original notes make
clear. His original notes were published in Italy and contain many
similar statements revealing the depth of Corso’s animosity towards
visiting extraterrestrials.9
For example, in terms of violating U.S. air space,
Corso wrote:
“They have violated our air space
with impunity and even landed on our territory. Whether
intentional or not, they have performed hostile acts. Our
citizens have been abducted and killed.”10
Corso went on to fully describe the
nature of the interaction between extraterrestrial visitors and the
general population:
“the aliens have shown a callous
indifference concerning their victims. Their behavior has been
insidious and it appears they might be using our earth and
manipulating earth life. Skeptics will excuse them that possibly
they are benevolent and want to help, however, there is no
evidence they have healed anyone or alleviated human ailments.
On the other hand, they have caused pain, suffering and even
death.”11
Corso here reveals the depth of his
animosity towards extraterrestrials and the information he had
received on their intrusive activities. His statements reveal that
he had a skeptical view of the ‘benevolence’ of visiting
extraterrestrials. Corso endorsed comments such as General Douglas
Macarthur’s claim in 1955 that the “nations of the world will have
to unite, for the next war will be an interplanetary war.” In terms
of cooperation between the US and Russia (former USSR) to deal with
the extraterrestrials, Corso wrote:
“The U.S. and USSR are aligning
their space programs against a common enemy.”12
Consequently, it can be concluded that
there is no ambiguity in Corso’s belief that extraterrestrials are a
genuine threat to US. national security and that weaponization of
space was an urgent policy priority to deal with the
“extraterrestrial enemy”. If alive today, Corso would no doubt be a
strong supporter of the current U.S Air Force plans to weaponize
space, and build a global defense shield that could target
extraterrestrial visitors.
In short, Corso has consistently
demonstrated strong support for military solutions to the presence
of visiting extraterrestrials that in his view were performing
abductions and other ‘intrusive activities’ that posed a direct
threat to U.S. national security.
Do
Extraterrestrials Pose a National Security & Global Threat?
The question that can now be raised is whether extraterrestrials do
genuinely pose a national security threat to the U.S. or the earth
more generally. This question is made very complex by the amount of
conflicting data on the extraterrestrial presence from a variety of
whistleblower and witness sources whose testimony is more difficult
to verify when compared to the case of the highly decorated Corso.
Answering such a policy question first requires that one understand
the nature of the “national security threat” posed by
extraterrestrials. Second, one needs to identify any groups of
extraterrestrials that may be performing intrusive actions that fall
into the category of ‘threat’.
Finally, one has to identify
extraterrestrials performing non-intrusive activities that do not
appear to be a threat to the national security of the U.S. or other
countries. There have been many rumors that the U.S. has entered
into agreements with extraterrestrial races. For example, there is
considerable circumstantial and testimonial evidence pointing to
President Eisenhower being actively involved in meeting with and
reaching agreements with extraterrestrial races.13
Col Corso, who served in the Eisenhower
administration, alludes to such agreements in various passages in
the Day After Roswell.
For example, he wrote:
“We had negotiated a kind of
surrender with them [extraterrestrials] as long as we couldn’t
fight them. They dictated the terms because they knew what we
most feared was disclosure.”14
There have been an ever growing number
of alleged whistleblowers describing the various agreements reached
with extraterrestrials that they saw direct evidence of during their
participation in projects or assignments with the highest possible
security classifications. These agreements allegedly involved the
exchange of technology or information by extraterrestrials in
exchange for the right to establish bases on U.S. territory. The
existence of such bases is explicitly revealed by Corso in his
private notes.
After describing the various intrusive activities
performed by the extraterrestrials, Corso went on to make the
following startling claim:
“The above are acts of war which we
would not tolerate from any worldly source. It also appears they
do not tolerate any such acts on our parts on their bases.”15
The implication here is that the
extraterrestrials have bases, likely on U.S. territory as alleged by
other whistleblowers, and the U.S. government was powerless to fully
monitor these bases.
Extraterrestrials that have entered into these agreements or
‘negotiated surrender’ as Corso claims; have performed activities in
the form of abductions, genetic experiments and aerial activities
that lead to great suspicion as to their ultimate agenda. Corso
repeatedly pointed out that such intrusive actions amounted to an
act of war and justified a concerted military response by U.S.
authorities.
It needs to be pointed out that prior to
these alleged agreements, most human-extraterrestrial interactions
appeared to be of the benevolent ‘space brother’ category that
emerged in the 1950’s.16
Individual ‘contactees’ claimed to have been exposed to a
variety of positive extraterrestrial experiences that inspired a
rapid growth in public interest in the benevolent ‘space brothers’.
There is reason to believe that the
abduction phenomenon that emerged into the public consciousness with
the famous
Betty and Barney Hill case in 1961 was a direct result of
alleged agreements reached with extraterrestrials. That is not to
say that negative experiences with extraterrestrials or ‘abductions’
didn’t happen before the agreements, but that the agreements enabled
these abductions to increase at a rate which went far beyond
whatever government authorities originally approved.
The
Secret Government, MJ-12 & Classified Agreements with
Extraterrestrials
The government authority that would be responsible for making the
alleged covert agreements is generally known by UFO researchers as
Majestic-12 or MJ-12 Group. Documentary evidence for the existence
of such a secret organization emerged in 1987 with the discovery of
a memo from President Eisenhower’s Special Assistant, Robert Cutler,
to General Nathan Twining. The memo referred to a schedule meeting
for July 16, 1954 and referred to the “MJ-12 Special Studies
Project”.
The above memo was found in the national
archives and has been shown to be genuine.17
In another document ‘leaked’ to UFO researchers and
known as the
Eisenhower Briefing Document, Majestic-12 is described
as having operational control of the UFO phenomenon:
Operation Majestic-12 is a Top
Secret Research and Development/Intelligence operation
responsible directly and only to the President of the United
States.
Operations of the project are carried out under control of the
Majestic-12 (Majic-12) Group which was established by special
classified executive order of President Truman on 24 September,
1947.18
The Briefing Document remains
controversial, but exhaustive archival analysis by researchers
strongly point to its authenticity.19
The Briefing Document listed 12 prominent military officials and
national security experts as its members among whom included Gordon
Gray who occupied a number of senior defense positions including
Secretary to the Army for President Truman from 1949-1950. He was
later President Eisenhower’s Special Assistant for National Security
(1958-61). Significantly, Gray was appointed by President Truman to
be the first director of the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB)
established in 1951 and declared to be part of the CIA. In 1953, the PSB was replaced by the more powerful
Operations Coordinating Board
(OCB). It’s worth going into detail of the history and activities of
both these organizations since they are related to management of the
UFO phenomenon.
Furthermore, each organization involved
Col Corso, a military intelligence specialist, in various covert
operations while serving in the Eisenhower administration. It is
likely that service on these Boards gave Corso the background
information that formed his developed views on extraterrestrials and
support for the weaponization of Space.
The Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) was created “under the
NSC to
coordinate government-wide psychological warfare strategy”.
20 The PSB was formally
succeeded by the more powerful Operations Coordinating Board
established by Executive Order 10483 on September 2, 1953 with the
following charter:
...the Operations Coordinating Board
shall (1) Whenever the President shall hereafter so direct,
advise the agencies concerned as to... the execution of each
security action or project so that it shall make its full
contribution to the attainment of national security objective
views and to the particular climate of opinion the United States
is seeking to achieve in the world...
Initially, the OCB was based at the
State Department and while formally authorized to report to the
National Security Council (NSC) and implement NSC decisions, it was
formally independent from the NSC. On February 25, 1957, Executive
Order 10700 formally incorporated the OCB into the NSC, which meant
the NSC had greater oversight and control of the OCB. The OCB was
officially ‘abolished’ by President Kennedy with Executive Order
10920 on February 18, 1961 that revoked Executive Order 10700.
Both the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) and the Operations
Coordinating Board (OCB) were interagency committees that were
responsible for covert operations in the Truman and Eisenhower
administrations, and reported directly to the National Security
Council. Both the PSB and OCB specialized in
psychological warfare
through the use of propaganda, mass media, and disinformation. These
would prove to be the very tools used to deny or ridicule the
UFO
phenomenon in the U.S. and suggests that both the PSB and OCB played
a key role in this.
There has been speculation that the OCB played a critical role in
managing the UFO phenomenon, and secretly continues to play this
role though with another name.21
Corso’s original notes provide evidence supporting this
UFO management role played by both the PSB and the OCB. According to
his military records, Col Corso was assigned to both the
Psychological Strategy Board and Operations Coordinating Board when
serving with the Eisenhower administration from 1953-1956. Corso
received numerous security clearances some of which gave him access
to UFO information.
In his original notes, Corso writes:
During my military career at one
time or another, I counted nine clearances above “Top Secret”
granted to me. These included cryptographic, satellite, code and
intercept, special operational clearances and the “Eyes Only”
category of special White House (NSC) matters. They made
available to me all matter within the government which included
“UFO” information.22
Consequently, Corso’s service on both
the PSB and OCB, and his access to UFO related information is
evidence that both these bodies played critical roles in managing
the UFO phenomenon through covert psychological operations.
Furthermore, the OCB was not abolished by Kennedy in 1961 as
generally thought since the revoking of Executive Order 10700
effectively made the OCB independent of the NSC rather than
abolishing it.
Executive Order 10920 only removed the
OCB out of control and scrutiny of the Kennedy administration. This
made the OCB once again an independent interagency governmental
organization with significant power through the covert psychological
programs it managed, and an important implementing mechanism for the
even more mysterious
Majestic-12.
Due to its clandestine nature and unaccountable status, Majestic-12
and covert organizations such as the Operations Coordinating Board
that manage UFO affairs are referred to as the ‘secret government’.
President Clinton when asked by famed Washington Post correspondent
Sarah McClendon why he didn’t do more to have the truth about UFOs
disclosed, he allegedly confided: “Sarah, there’s a secret
government within the government, and I don’t control it.”23
The ‘secret government’ is the government within
the government that controls and makes policy decisions over how to
deal with extraterrestrials; whether they constitute a ‘threat’ or
not; and develops agreements with some extraterrestrial
civilizations.
The ‘Internal’ versus ‘External’ Security Threat by Visiting
Extraterrestrials
There is intense debate over whether
extraterrestrials involved in abductions and other intrusive
activities described by Corso (commonly described as ‘Grays’
from
Zeta Reticulum) have a covert ‘take-over’ agenda. Researchers such
as Dr David Jacobs (author of The Threat) believe the ‘Grays’ have a
covert plan to take-over human society by engineering a superior
hybrid race. On the other hand, researchers such as Dr John Mack
(author of Passport to the Cosmos) believes the star visitors have a
‘transformative’ agenda designed to blend together the best
characteristics of extraterrestrials and humanity.
While this is an important debate, it
glosses over one of the key features of the extraterrestrial
presence - classified agreements between extraterrestrials and the
‘secret government’. In considering the ‘transformative’ vs.
‘take-over’ debate, it is vital to consider all the data and come up
with a nuanced response that takes into account different
extraterrestrial races performing activities. Visiting
extraterrestrials need to be distinguished on the basis of them
either being inside or outside the secret network of agreements
reached with the ‘secret government’.24
The key policy issue is not whether we should establish
communication with extraterrestrials to resolve differences that
lead to confrontations over the number of abductions or other
intrusive activities reported by Corso and others. The key issue is
the precise nature of the agreements reached with extraterrestrials,
and how these are conducted in a covert and unaccountable manner. As
far as the abduction phenomenon is concerned, it is very likely that
these were made possible by, or accelerated as a result of, covert
agreements by secret government authorities with one or more
extraterrestrial civilizations.
Consequently, the national security threat posed by
extraterrestrials is a covert one that exists through the
classified
agreements established by the secret government with some
extraterrestrial races. The motivation of extraterrestrials that
have entered into these agreements is very questionable and gives
considerable cause for suspicion as to their overall intent.
Certainly the great number of abductions that have occurred give
rise to the ‘take over’ scenario promoted by Dr Jacobs and other
researchers.
Once one considers the vast secret
infrastructure created to develop
extraterrestrial technologies and
the illicit funding required for such an infrastructure, it becomes
clear that the national security threat posed by extraterrestrials
is INTERNAL rather than EXTERNAL.25
Corso’s depiction of extraterrestrials as an
external military threat to the U.S. is therefore not accurate.
Extraterrestrials that have entered into agreements with secret
government authorities are complicit in the creation of national
security system based on secrecy, unaccountability and illicit
funding. This directly threatens US. national security both in terms
of a covert take-over by extraterrestrials, and an erosion of the
constitutional principles upon which the U.S. is based. The real
national security threat posed by some extraterrestrial visitors is
a result of the desire of the ‘secret government’ to acquire and
develop
extraterrestrial technologies
at any cost, even if it means
giving permission to a limited number of abductions and other
intrusive actions.
On the other hand, extraterrestrials who have not entered into such
technology exchange agreements with secret government authorities
have behaved in ways that display great respect towards individuals
they have contacted. This is evidenced in the extensive number of
‘contactee’ or ‘space brother’ reports from the 1950’s, right up to
the modern era. These extraterrestrials that typically look human in
appearance reflect great respect for human free will and follow what
appears to be a clear directive for non-interference in human
affairs.
Extraterrestrials that are trying to
assist humanity, as described by these alleged contactees, are
secretly being targeted by space weapons in order to capture their
technology or the EBEs themselves. This also includes Grays from
Zeta Reticulum who are involved in abductions that have reached
agreements with the secret government. It does appear that the
relationship between the Grays and the ‘secret government’ is a
complex one where some whistleblowers report on military
confrontations between them in terms of the extent to which either
or both have violated the terms of their secret agreements.26
Conclusion: The Use of Space Weapons is an Inappropriate Policy for
Extraterrestrial Visitors
In terms of the deploying space weapons,
the deliberate targeting of extraterrestrial visitors needs to be
exposed. This requires briefing legislative officials in the U.S.
and elsewhere so that a more appropriate policy response can be
developed. There is a need to put a halt to the current U.S. policy
of targeting extraterrestrial vehicles through the deployment of
space based and other advanced weapons systems.
As Hellyer pointed out in his September
2005 speech:
“Are they really enemies or merely legitimate explorers
from afar?”
What makes this policy issue complex from the
perspective of whistleblowers such as Corso, who is representative
of many military officials briefed about the extraterrestrial
presence, is that they believe that the weaponization of space is
appropriate. This policy is justified, in Corso’s and other military
officials’ views, on the basis of the intrusive activities of
extraterrestrials.
The abduction phenomenon and related intrusive activities needs to
be understood in terms of the highly classified agreements reached
between the ‘secret government’ and extraterrestrials. It should be
pointed out that military officials such as Corso did not appear to
be briefed about friendly extraterrestrials and the latter’s
non-intrusive activities. Instead, Corso was given information on
abduction related activities and other extraterrestrial intrusions
that lead to the psychological framework for the creation of ‘enemy
images’. This process is described by Sam Keen in Faces of the Enemy
which clearly outlines how the creation of enemy images has been a
vital aspect for fighting successful wars.27
In short, what has emerged over the last
50 years or so is the creation of an ‘extraterrestrial enemy’ that
justifies the development and deployment of space weapons according
to Corso and other military officials. This takes us to the warnings
of
Dr Carol Rosin, a former spokeswoman to Dr Werner Von Braun,
about a contrived extraterrestrial threat being the basis of a
public disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence.28
Such a contrived threat would direct public
perceptions towards perceptions of extraterrestrials as unfriendly
and a security threat. A more nuanced assessment based on the
‘internal’ versus ‘external threat’ posed by extraterrestrials is
needed.
Consequently, in response to the
profound policy question raised by Hellyer of whether weaponization
of space is an appropriate policy response to the extraterrestrial
visitors, the answer is NO. There is no need for a military response
to the extraterrestrial visitors. It is clear that extraterrestrials
who pose a credible ‘national security threat’ do so by virtue of
their involvement in a series of secret agreements that make
possible a covert take over of the vast infrastructure of
extraterrestrial related projects that exist in the U.S., and other
countries. This covert extraterrestrial threat requires a POLITICAL
solution rather than a MILITARY solution –public disclosure of the
extraterrestrial presence.
With public disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence, there can
be the necessary transparency and accountability to ensure that any
technology exchange agreements with extraterrestrials are conducted
in a responsible way, and do not make human society prone to a
covert ‘take-over’ by extraterrestrials. It is very likely that the
abduction phenomenon would cease to be a problem once transparency
and accountability were brought into play.
Extraterrestrial visitors performing
such activities could be closely monitored and persuaded from
continuing any activities that violated individual human rights.
‘Persuasive mechanisms’ would come in a variety of ways:
-
rigorous
public debate over extraterrestrial activities
-
educating
extraterrestrials about human rights standards
-
the anticipated
support of many extraterrestrial civilizations in monitoring and
countering violations by other extraterrestrials
The Honorable Paul Hellyer called for an urgent public debate over
the appropriateness of current military policies directed towards
extraterrestrial visitors. The current policy advocated by Col Corso
of weaponizing space and targeting extraterrestrial vehicles, is
supported by many former and current military officials ‘in the
loop’ about the extraterrestrial visitors. The development and use
of space based weapons against extraterrestrial visitors will be
shown to be a poor policy choice once the true history of ‘secret
government’ and extraterrestrial agreements are revealed.
As a former Minister of Defense, Paul Hellyer is very familiar with the importance of policy questions
concerning the use of military weapons in resolving international
political problems. He is to be congratulated on bringing to the
public’s attention the “profoundly important policy questions that
must be addressed” with regard to the weaponization of space and the
alleged targeting of extraterrestrial visitors.
More Information in "Weaponizing
Space "
Endnotes
-
“Speech by President George W.
Bush,” National Defense University, Washington, May 1, 2001. Transcript available at:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/010501bush.html
-
Cited in “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-23,”
available online at:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-23.htm
-
See “Exopolitics Toronto: A Symposium on UFO Disclosure and
Planetary Direction,”
http://www.exopoliticstoronto.com
.
-
Paul Hellyer, “Missile Defense: It Was Wrong Then and It's
Wrong Now,” Globe and Mail, May 15, 2003.
Available online at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0515-10.htm
-
For more details on Hellyer’s speech and to view it online, go
to:
http://exopoliticstoronto.com.
-
Hellyer disclosed the existence of these officials in a
private conversation with the author in November 8, 2005, but chose not to reveal further details of them due to
their need for anonymity.
-
Philip Corso,
The Day After Roswell (Simon & Schuster, 1997)
290.
-
Corso, The Day After Roswell, 292.
-
Philip Corso, L’Alba Di Una Nuova Era [Dawn of a New Age] tr.
Maurizio Baiata (Pendragon, 2003). I thank Maurizio Baiata for permission to quote extracts based on
his translation of Corso’s original notes.
-
Dawn of a New Age, 77.
-
Dawn of a New Age, p. 98.
-
Dawn of a New Age, 78.
-
For discussion of testimonial and circumstantial evidence of
such a meeting, see
Eisenhower’s 1954 Meeting With Extraterrestrials
-
The Day After Roswell, 292.
-
Dawn of a New Age, p. 77
-
See William Hamilton,
“California Contactees,”
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/et031.html
-
See Stanton Friedman, Top Secret/Majic (2005): 86-102
-
Majestic Documents, 128. See also
www.majesticdocuments.com
-
See Friedman, Top Secret/Majic, 56-85.
-
Cited in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968,
vol. XII, Western Europe, pp. XXXI-XXXV, April 16, 2001. Available online at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/covert.html
-
See “A Nation Deceived”
-
Corso, Dawn of a New Age, 31.
-
See
http://www.presidentialufo.com/newpage17.htm
-
See
A Report on the Motivations and Activities
of Extraterrestrial Races
-
See Michael Salla, “The Black Budget Report”
-
See the Michael Salla, “The
Dulce Report”
-
See Keen, Faces of the Enemy:
Reflections of the Hostile Imagination (Harper Collins, 1991).
-
See
Carol Rosin interview
|