Aerospace companies and UFOs 3

Hi readers

The weekend is here again, and in Adelaide today the predicted temperature is 27 degrees C, much better than the 40 degrees we had the other day. Time to open up the house and air the rooms.

A question I asked myself the other day is why bother looking at the past when researching UFOs? What value, for example, is there in examining the role of aerospace companies? Why take apart the National Security Agency's FOIA UFO documents?

The answers I came up with were:

1. Trends and behaviours. If an aerospace company established a UFO study project once, then there is a possibility they will do so again. Here is an example.

My earlier posts about McDonnell Douglas revealed that they ran a UFO study between 1966 and 1970. Did they run any studies before this one? They may well have done. The reference for this assertion is found in one of Vallee's diary entries ( Vallee, J. 2008. Forbidden Science Volume 2. Documatica Research, LLC pages 334-335.

"I got an interesting call from a vice-president with Environmental Systems in Van Nuys who'd read Invisible College. As early as 1955 he belonged to a UFO group at Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica. He worked there with Wheaten (now at Lockheed, in the submarine division), Ted Gordon, Klemperer and Dave Crook. They were asked by Douglas management to assess cases from Blue Book, complete with photos and films. Their conclusion, which they were asked to "forget," was that the objects used multi-dimensional physics.

He now claims they found no less than 2,000 sites in Owen valley alone, including places where objects seem to go in and ouit of the solid ground."

If the above has truth, then it would indicate that Douglas ran a UFO study around 1955 and another between 1966 and 1970. The probability that they may have been behind another study in the period 1974-1978 as other Vallee diary entries indicate is thus, in my opinion, increased.

2. Hiding other things. The NSA says it will not release certain documents because it would reveal too much about the collection methods. Sometimes a careful reading will still reveal things, i.e. the probabilioty that the balloons being talked about in some of their SIGINT documents referred to Taiwainese launched balloons over mainland China, and not to UFOs.

What do you think?