74. Richard Dolan : UFO's and the National Security State
Announcer: This is radio free Signs of the Times...broadcasting into the heart of an occupied America.
Henry : Welcome to this week's Signs-of-the-Time podcast. I'm Henry.
Joe: I'm Joe.
Scott: And I'm Scott.
H: We are here this week with our special guest Richard Dolan, the author of UFO's and the National Security State. Volume one of Richard's book covered the years 1941 to 1973 and he is currently writing his second volume that will bring the story up to date. Maybe we will be able to get a little glimpse of some of the things that he'll be talking about in that book. We came across Richard's work oh back in 2001, 2002 and we were pretty amazed by what he had been able to come up with and we've been wanting to get a hold of him for several years and we've finally been able to do it. So, hi Rich.
RD: Hi Henry, Joe, Scott, thank you for having me here.
H: So you're weren't involved or weren't interested in UFOs when you began your research, were you?
RD: Not particularly. I grew up with what I think would be an average level of interest in this topic compared with most people. In other words I wasn't really a hard core believer and I wasn't a sceptic.
I had an interest as a child from having seen a few “In Search Of” episodes with Leonard Nimoy. I remember thinking, that's a cool show and I grew up like everybody else with shows like Star Trek and that sort of thing but I never really thought in any serious way about the UFO phenomenon.
I went through undergraduate and then graduate school, focusing on political history primarily and history and philosophy and literature and it wasn't until I was in my 30's - I was doing graduate work in history at the University of Rochester - Lot of cold war studies in which, at which time I - this question hit me. And it was a very conservative question.
I was in a book store with my wife and I chanced across Timothy Good's very excellent book “Above Top Secret”, subtitled “The World Wide UFO Cover Up”. I remember this very well. It was 1993, '94. This book was staring me right in the face and I picked it up and I thought “Oh wow, cool”. I remember flipping through the book, seeing names that I recognised, CIA directors and military generals and so on. People, some of whose diaries I had studied like James Forrestal, Secretary of Defence but ...
H: Because at that time your interest was at the cold war?
RD: Absolutely
H: then National Security State.
RD: Right. And here is Timothy Good dropping names and departments that I had studied but in a completely different context and I had this feeling immediately of what I occasionally call schizophrenic society, schizophrenic culture, where there is an official truth and the official truth is: "none of this stuff is real, all of it is nonsense"m and then you find, seemingly very intelligent, well informed, serious people who do take it seriously. And everybody, in the course of their lives, has come across claims by high level military people or alleged insiders who've taken UFOs seriously.
So I had this crystallized moment in my life in which I just asked myself, "I really want to know if this is a serious topic or not". Because if it is serious, then why have I not read about it in any academic history book ever?
Even if it was a mistake, even if you go back to 1915, you discover that a three star general was really worried about UFOs as something unexplained. Would it not be interesting to go back to that moment, to be a fly on the wall of that general's office and find out why he would be taking it seriously? How could that not be interesting in the context of the cold war and so on?
And so that was really, my very conservative entry point into this field. I didn't just want to know "what are UFOs?" necessarily, I just wanted to know "was it a valid historical topic?" And that turned out to be the kind of crow bar by which I pried my way into this field.
H: And then how long did it take you to go from there to realising that, yes there was something there and it might be something that is fairly important?
RD: Not particularly long, to tell you the truth. What happened was, I went in, I read, I picked up Timothy Good's book and I read it and I remembered thinking, “wow, can this be true”? Can that be true? Could there have been a Portuguese Air Force encounter with a UFO that actually did that? Or could there have been this US military encounter? In other words, it was one military encounter after another that really got my attention. Could this director of scientific intelligence for the CIA really have said that to his boss, that this phenomenon involves a truly unexplained phenomenon that doesn't involve any known technology? You know, you know, statements that are just, really out there but that seems to be true and it turns out were true.
So within a few months, I was... I was deep into it. What had started out as a personal pet side-project, kept growing and growing. And one thing I did early on was I started taking very methodical notes. Every source, every book that I read, I essentially extracted a chronological database. So I go through each book, checked off a fact of interest and put it down in my file. And each...
H: Uh hmm, and your background as a historian coming out...
RD: Exactly. And then each new datum that I thought was important, I put in chronological order and the real thing that saved me was that I cited each one. So every, everything was annotated and cited. So when I went back, I knew exactly where I got my particular fact from that I could cross check and so forth. The next thing I knew, I had gone through 20, then 30, then 50 then a 100 different sources and it kept growing and the next thing I knew I had this enormous factual, chronological database.
Now, you know, not every single fact that I put into my database turned out to be true. You have to judge and evaluate. But it turned out be an incredibly useful exercise for me because what I quickly saw was that, most books on this topic are not constructed in a chronological way. Not exactly. And by putting a lot of different sources in one huge database, I felt that I was able to see patterns that I might not have seen otherwise. For example, the connections between UFO cover-up and a lot of other covert types of activities that were going on in the United States in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. Seems... there seems to be a lot of dovetailing that turned out be useful when I was writing my book.
Make a long story short though, what started out as a pet project, morphed into this 500 page book. A book that I wrote as a historical narrative. I tried to do as little opinionated - opinion editorialising - as I could and I really tried in a detached way to write what seems to be a factually based history and that's the result.
So the book in a sense asks a couple of basic questions: Is there a UFO phenomenon that's legitimate? The answer is yes.
What is legitimate about it? Well there are certain military documents, government documents, that we have that cannot be argued. They are real. They indicate a phenomenon that doesn't have any conventional logical explanation but yet seems to have existed; seems to have been taken seriously.
Third question is, why was this a big deal? And one answer among several is that it involved a national security problem which was - there were many of these objects violating airspace that you just don't go in and violate. Whether it's the Oak Ridge nuclear facility or Los Alamos or innumerable air force bases, naval air stations, army bases; objects going in, seen visually, tracked at times on radar, sometimes both, attempted intercepts; how much more serious do you want to get in the context of the early cold war?
So once I really saw that there was this very, very big thing, I knew I was on to something that was big, it was important and that I was not going to let go of.
J: When you were following your studies on the cold war, were you aware, before you came across any of this evidence for UFO phenomenon, were you aware of the existing proposed reality of UFOs in terms of, or what is today known as, the kind of the fringe UFO community or the UFO production community, were you aware of that? I mean most people are aware, have some awareness of UFOs....
RD: I had very little knowledge of any of that, Joe. I didn't even know, really, the full dimensions of the Roswell story. All, at that point in 1993, I had heard the word Roswell, the name Roswell. I really wouldn't have been able to tell you much of anything about it to be honest with you, none of the names. As far as the abduction phenomenon, yes, I was aware of an alleged abduction phenomenon, but I didn't know a lot about it...
H: Would you say that you were more, that you were pretty sceptical about the whole thing or were you just completely open minded?
RD: I would say that I was open minded but I was not a believer or a disbeliever. I was someone who... where this was, an interesting possibility that I had not really tried to assimilate into my world, which I think a lot of people do this; like, you might watch a documentary on television about UFOs and at the end of it scratch your head and think, well that was interesting and then you'd file it away and you don't try to assimilate it into your world view. I think most people do that and I think that's what I did. I did, I had a copy somehow of Whitley Strieber's book “Communion” which I picked up sometime in the late 1980's. The book was still fairly new, but even that book didn't really have a major impact on me. I remembered reading it and I thought, well that's interesting but I had no framework in which to make a judgment about it. And so I just sort of let it go,
J: And of course you like...
RD: Once again resonated with it.
J: Yeah, you, like part of, like most people were influenced by the depiction of UFOs in common, in popular culture. They are generally derided or they're... "it's science fiction".
RD: Yeah right.
J: So it would be right to say, it was only when you started to come across official documents that you kind of were forced in a way to sit up and take notice of it?
RD: That's exactly right.
J: Because otherwise, like the rest of the population, just dismiss it as sci-fi, you know kooks, whackos.
RD: Excellent point. Well I had a - there was a sense that - I had this sense that there was something meaty behind this, that there was a weighty issue behind it but I didn't know anything about it. In other words, you know I'd heard of rumours and claims that there was a military component to it but to be fair, I really didn't know much about it and it was just not part of my consciousness. I mean in those days I was in my like mid-twenties, I was working on a lot of other intellectual problems in my life: German history, Soviet history, US diplomacy, whatever - and the UFO issue just was never, ever, in academic culture, never,
H: Laughing...
RD: Never; you don't do it.
H: You are not going to get tenure if you talk about UFOs.
RD: God no. You won't, you wouldn't even get it if you were to get into other so called conspiracies theories like even the Kennedy assassination.
I remember very early in the, in the early 1990s, I was a fairly experienced graduate student chatting with a tenured professor who was - we were talking a little bit about the Kennedy assassination - just came up and it turned out that he believed very firmly in the lone gunman theory, Oswald acting alone. And this professor was a very liberal, kind of left leaning professor, at least in academic culture. And he discovered that I did not believe; I did believe that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. And at one point in the conversation, he gave me this look like, “Oh, you are a conspiracy theorist” and I instinctively knew, I better chill out right now because if I go any further with this I am not going to have much of a career in the academic world.
So that's something as mundane as the Kennedy assassination and there were very distinct limits as far as how far you go, UFOs are completely off the map.
H: Yeah no kidding....
J: It's amazing how they've associated essentially any belief in conspiracy theories with fragility of mind almost. You are looked on as though you are essentially not able for any kind of an official position in the world of academia because essentially you are slightly unbalanced. If you...
RD: It's mystifying in a way because even.. you've got, you've the left wing and the right wing professors. So look at the left wing ones first. These are people who look, tend to look somewhat critically at a, for example the United States government in a lot of ways - foreign policy - and they are not afraid to talk about even things like US imperialism abroad. They'll do it. They'll talk about corporate domination of the world and yet they stop at a certain point and it's almost as if they fail to see that people who are at the top would ever, ever work together covertly for their own end. Well of course, I mean conspiracies in a sense are part of standard organisational culture. But within academia, you'll almost never find studies of the intelligence community, ever. It's very rare. And there is, so there is very little acknowledgment even in the academic literature, of academic relationship to say the intelligence community like the CIA. There is only a handful of books that discuss these things. So...
H: What I like about this types on the left where, as far as they can go is that, Bush and the Bush administration just capitalized on it.
RD: Oh well like 911...
H: You know, they took advantage of 911
RD: Right, exactly.
H: ... or whatever and then they say, “oh conspiracies you know, if there were conspiracies, it would come out, you know. They wouldn't be able to keep the conspiracies secret.”
RD: Right.
H: And then you go, “Yeah, well look you know here is somebody over here talking about it, here is somebody over here talking about it.” There are all sorts of people who, who are talking about these things and
RD: Right, right...
H: ,,, and it's there in front of your nose and they, they....
RD: And also there are some very good studies on the centralisation and consolidation of main stream media alright. This is very - got a great academic literature. It's very well understood that, look it's a lot easier to control main stream media if you only have 5 or 10 major organisations to deal with as oppose to say 200, fifty years ago. Alright so, and yet there is not, there doesn't seem to be a corresponding recognition that it's easier now to manipulate main stream news. That in other words main stream news could possible be complicit in cover ups. There is, academicians and off course media, are not willing to go there.
So it's frustrating for people like us, we can see it and whether it's with 911 or with the UFO cover up, both of these are issues that are well beyond the pale.
It's one reason, when I started you know to get back to writing this book of mine, the process of writing this book was in a sense my divorce from the academic community because I started researching it, I was still very much involved in my graduate studies and it was about after one year, I was doing both at the same time. I was doing, I was still trying to do a Phd dissertation in US cold war strategies circa 1950, at the same time I was doing all this UFO stuff, and I kept thinking of this schizophrenic reality: the UFO reality and the official reality, and I became convinced that there was a UFO reality and I - it was increasingly disturbing to me and dissonant for me to try to look at the one and then the other. And it was at the end of that first year, there are no jobs for historians anyway; I really didn't want to drag my family around begging for some adjunct instructing position somewhere. So, I said "I'm out". It was a tough decision personally. It was the hardest decision I ever had to make in my life up to that point but I am very glad that I did it and it really liberated me then to dive into this field. Writing this book really was the dissertation that I wanted to do. And it took me into, into a realm of what - I now call myself an independent scholar - and much more liberated, I think, than I could have been in the world at the university.
H: (Laughing) To put it mildly.
RD: Yeah.
H: In the book, you talk about the fact that because you've got the US military scrambling jets to chase after these objects that are going over highly sensitive areas, that that indicates that the government itself is taking this very very seriously.
RD: Right, yeah.
H: That also suggest that some of the, that the people that say that the government is in cahoots with whatever is out there, might also have to be looked at in a different light because you wouldn't be scrambling all of these jets up, if you knew what they were and these were your close space brother buddies.
RD: That's a good point. It makes it a very problematic explanation to say that we are in cahoots with them. I go back and forth because there are, there are inside leaks and rumours you hear this frequently enough, that indicate there is supposedly some level of collaboration. I think it's possible that there is, actually. On the other hand, it's undeniable what we know for sure, is that there is a history of confrontation as well, and this goes back right to the beginning and it has continued to our own day, right into the 21st century. There are account after account after account, many of this in the military documentation, others simply multiple eye witness accounts but they are consistent, which show exotic objects being chased by our own aircraft. And not just US military but military of other nations have a long history. France, Soviet Union, China, all of the NATO countries, South Africa, Iran, and other nations have had their jet fighters engaged at various points in history with these objects, that seemingly out classed..
H: Any reports from Israel on this?
RD: There are, I don't know. There are Israeli UFO reports. I'm not, of the top of my head, aware of encounters with the Israeli air force with UFOs, but in the late 1990s, there was a wave of very bizarre and interesting UFO encounters in Israel including some interesting triangular aircraft.
H: We came across an interesting Israeli link, in a recent false flag operation that Joe wrote about where one of the people who was involved in kind of spotting, what was it, whose..?
J: Yeah he was a guy who was on - hired or the paid, appeared to be paid - anyway when you look at the story, first responder or eyewitness to an alleged Palestinian suicide bombing, the last one in Alat? down in south Israel and this guy was right there. He was corroborating all of the official story from an eyewitness point of view and he, we dug up some more information and found out that he was also involved in what turned out to be essentially faking UFO encounters quite elaborately actually in Israel.
RD: What is his name, I'm sorry?
J: I can't remember off the top of my head right now, but I can, I'll look it up and well...
RD: That's bizarre. So faking UFO encounters and also faking, you are saying an encounter with a....
J: Well essentially faking Palestinian suicide bombings
RD: Palestinian suicide bombings?
J: ... or having a part in that.
RD: Well that sounds like an intelligence operation does it not gentlemen?
H: Yes.
RD: Yeah, I think it does.
J: So you could link to......
H: Probably it's an argument from somebody on that?
J: Yeah, this is one of the things we've talked about a little recently. With Richard, it's just the idea of everything being, when you really look into it, you start seeing this threads that link so many different things, so many bizarre and what are called conspiracy theories in our world across the board, they all now and again or more and more you see the the links between them, between the people within them...
RD: There are more connections than I would have ever thought. Writing this book and then being in this field has required me to rip away layer after layer of illusion and every time I get to a new layer, I think okay maybe I've got it and then, you know another year goes by and I learn some other major thing and “krrraaakkk” there goes the next layer. And so now I am at, you know I started out with the point of, I just want to know is there a UFO reality and possible cover up but you can't just stop there, at least I couldn't and that takes you into this entire nether world, the black covert world. And what I find, and I think what a lot of us here have found is that, that there is an enormous, I don't think people fully, I don't think most people appreciate how massive and powerful and wealthy this subterranean covert spy world, lets call it, is. There are billions and billions and trillions of dollars apparently that have gone missing from our official global economy and have gone, well, where? Good question.
We know for sure that there are a huge number in the United States of black ops, that is, covert operations that aren't suppose to exist but do, that appear to have enormous sums of money with no oversight. So fill in the blanks guys, what does that mean? There are groups that are able to have tremendous leeway in pursuing activities that are in their interest without the rest of us knowing about it. That could include all kinds of covert responses to UFOs of a wide range, that can include, hey things like 911, that can include all kinds of covert biological weapons testing or mind control experiments or false flag operations. The thing is, it's difficult to get a handle on because officially these, these activities don't exist but researchers know that they do exist and so, we are up against an enemy, lets call them that. They are an enemy that hasn't officially revealed themselves, it's like that there are, you know like in the movie the “Predator” the guy who - the alien - who is invisible. That's like what we are going against. These guys in a way, they are almost invisible because they don't get, they don't get any major media attention and they don't want us to be looking at them, but they are very powerful.
J: Uh hmm. When I think about the whole UFO phenomenon and what you've uncovered through your research and in your book I, it seems that there are various levels of evidence lets say, or strengths of evidence, for a UFO conspiracy, the strongest perhaps being the official documented evidence of US fighter planes chasing objects that they clearly don't know what they are.
RD: And with a great....
J: ... and to try and apprehend them
RD: Yeah.
J: And that's a strong, I mean that's pretty bullet proof right there.
RD: Yeah.
J: From there you build and you go into more evidence and it starts to get maybe a little more...
RD: Speculative perhaps?
J: Yeah or dubious or it's hearsay, or it's reports of what someone said, or an official said but there is maybe no documentary evidence per se. But even if we just keep it at the official level or the strongest level of evidence, basically, and even if we take the least conspiratorial theory that we based on that evidence that is that, they are craft that appear not to be of this world or of human making lets say, that are visiting and have been for quite sometime, now I wonder why in that situation what is the answer to the question of why would the government want to keep that? If that was just where it stopped, if that's all they knew, why would they even want to keep that piece of evidence? I don't know, I am just..
RD: Why would they want to hide the...
J: Hidden from the public
RD: From the discussion.
J: Why would that have to be secret? If that's all it was, lets just imagine that, that is all it is, that's just to the, that's to the level to which it has got to at this point: where the only thing that the governments of this world know is that there are these craft that visit the planet and that they are a bunch of technology that we don't understand? Why do they want to keep that secret?
RD: Well the umm, that's exactly the question that dominated the field for the first 30 years or so. In other words there was no recognition in the 1940s and 50s, 60s and 70s that we had acquired hardware from them. This was not up for consideration. The question was, the government seems to be hiding what it knows, that there appear to be aliens here on this planet with us, possibly surveilling us or you know, watching us in some way, maybe some limited interactions, so the question was, why wouldn't the government just come out with it? We are grown ups, we can handle it, we are not all going to jump out of buildings. And so the dominant explanation on that level that you often hear is, well they are afraid of social panic, threat to religious beliefs and so forth.
In fact I don't believe, I mean I don't think that's why there is secrecy.
I do believe - it becomes a much more serious proposition if you have hardware that you have acquired than if you don't have hardware. And what has come out since the late 1970s increasingly is account after account after account of individuals who have claimed to have witnessed either the retrieval of a UFO crash or a dead alien body in cryogenic storage, for example at Wright Patterson Air Force base or any other number of stories directly linking to alien technology. And what I think has happened is that, like, pretend that you are the president of the United States in 1947; you are Harry Truman. And your top adviser informs you that, “Well sir, we have apparently recovered technology that does not appear to be manufactured by human hands.” So now as the president, you have to decide what you do about this information. Do you tell the world? I think that the answer is "no". And the answer... because we know historically the United States was not willing to share atomic technology with the world. This was a big issue at that time. The United Nations in 1947 in fact was asking the US to make atomic technology under international control because it was considered too important for any one nation to have. America's answer was, “No, this is the quickest way to give it to the Soviets and we don't want to do that.” So there was no willingness to share atomic technology. I can't imagine why they would want to share something as exotic as alien technology. The best way to keep that to yourself is to keep it secret and what I believe Harry Truman and his successors did was to gather his top advisor's around him and say, “Figure out what we are going to do here. Figure out how we are going to utilize this technology if we can. And by the way figure out who these other beings are. Do I have anything to worry about?” I think that is the logical thing that you would do and that's is not an irresponsible thing.
The problem is that, as time goes on, secrecy has it's own momentum and it's own profitability. So what happened, what I believe happened, is that - and this is the crux of the secrecy - to exploit that technology, I think, you have to farm it out to private industry, corporate players, who have the scientist and the R&D personnel. They got the engineers. They can try to replicate this or at least understand it and come up with their own nifty little ideas and this is like the goose that lays golden eggs for these guys. They have no incentive for sharing their knowledge of this technology with anyone because they are making a mint of off it.
That's what I think it comes down to and increasingly, in every other aspect of our society, analysts are able to see how corporations and private money has taken over the international political structure and that includes national governments. You know everyone talks about the revolving door between the Pentagon and private defence contractors. That's a no brainer. So this is a very attractive option for secrecy as you privatise the money and a small little clique of people are making a huge amount of money off this technology and they have no incentive for sharing this with the world. So that's, I think a big part of the motivation for the secrecy. And the other one: that I would just say is, the longer you lie about this, the harder it becomes, the more of a of a public relations nightmare it's gonna be to let this out because you have to then explain why you've lied. And you open up a can of worms of related topics it’s not going to be easy to deal with publicly.
J: One of the things that occurred to me was, at the beginning, when you began to answer that question, you mentioned some of the plausible reasons as to why they would keep say, just the evidence that there are apparently non-terrestrial craft flying in our skies and we can't catch them. You mentioned religion as a plausible explanation. Now I think that just that fact alone, if they were to release that fact, that would immediately blow open the myth that really underpins a lot of religions - well the major world religions - in that, we are alone in the universe. We are God’s special creation and you know, people say that the flat “earthers” are long since dead but I mean there is that idea, those archaic kinds of completely misinformed ideas; these still underpin the major world religions. I mean, Christianity still says.....
RD: Although not Islam actually. Islam which recognises the extra-terrestrial reality according to Koran.
J: Yeah, but the thing is that, it basically blows open that myth of religion and would - these people that keep this secrets probably very quickly came to the conclusion that it would - do away with, quite possible very quickly, do away with say Christianity and…
RD: Well yeah we can be grown ups here and recognise that the Christian religion has been used for two thousand years as major support for political power. I mean, that's not a radical thing to say. And so by undermining the religion, you undermine the structure of power.
J: Yeah, and they don't want to do that
RD: No.
J: And that points very directly to the nature of government, the nature of the power structure on the planet. I am just trying to get back to basics here in a way and to kind of, because this is something that I think a lot of people don't really want to accept is that, the purpose of major world religions and of governments - and they are all essentially linked together - is to control the population.
RD: I testify brother, that's right! (laughing)
J: And for me, this little piece of evidence that can be logically inferred from the facts in your book points to - it's almost like a smoking gun - to the nature of government, the nature of religion: to control the populations. And once you've got there, once you've got to that point, once you've accepted that and there is not really any wiggle room anymore, well there you go; once you establish that as a reality, well then you are in trouble, cause you've got to start asking yourself what else? What other tactics, what other data have they been keeping from the population across the board to essentially maintain ther goal that they have, that is established, by what I am saying: to control the population? That's the nature of government.
RD: Yeah. I think it's control. The UFO phenomenon didn't just fall into anyone's lap. It fell into the lap of a powerful, national security apparatus and that apparatus was the United States military industrial complex; lets call it that. So this wasn't just any old organisation that had to deal with it. These are the guys with the resources and the intelligence, I mean these are very brilliant people and they had to decide what to do about this. The UFO phenomenon threatened their status, I think there is no question about that.
The interesting thing is trying to understand the attitude of the UFO operators themselves, the aliens or the extra-terrestrials. They… I've spent now more than 10 years trying to figure it out myself. What is their attitude towards us?
On the one hand, they engage in various provocative ways with the militaries of the world, often playing cat and mouse games almost seeming like they are having fun with, toying with us. On the other hand there are a very few instances in which they seem overtly or aggressively to be shooting our guys out of the sky. I mean there are cases when aircraft appeared to be lost but it typically appears to be cases when we are going after them.
So you could argue - as some do - that they are not overtly hostile. On the other hand, there are reasons to be very suspicious, deeply suspicious of what they are. At all times I feel like, you know… whereas I wonder about the nature of these other beings, I've never been comfortable trying to make a definite determination as to whether I think that they are good or evil. I suspect that there is a bit of both involved. I think that if they were really good though, they would have helped us out a little bit more right now. I mean we're on a high speed train and the tracks are headed towards the edge of a cliff and I don't see our space brothers trying to bail our sorry asses out here at the eleventh hour. So that's one argument against their good nature.
H: Well, “they’re coming, they’re coming...”
J: “Hold on, just wait, just wait, the eleventh hour, they'll be here!”
RD: I suspect that they are intensely interested in us. I've felt this for a long time. We are going through such a rapid change in our civilisation, sometimes we lose track - we lose perspective - on just how incredible our moment in history right now is. In a mere hundred years, we have re-invented ourselves in such a way - I mean think about it - persons living at the turn of the 20th century, they wouldn't be able to recognise our civilisation today because of the rate of rapid technological change. And I personally believe that that rate of change is continuing and maybe even getting more rapid so that in another 20, 30, 40 years, we are going to be even more unrecognisable.
So these other beings, I am sure that they are interested in us. They might even be a little bit concerned about these war-like individuals who are going to be getting some really dangerous weapons in the next few generations. They might very likely want to keep tabs on us, they might even want to find ways to manipulate us in certain ways and this is where I think we get into some interesting issues. They are not all provable but I have personally speculated many times that if I were an alien here on earth, I would be very interested in these humans and I would probably want to find ways of managing that culture and what I would do is to probably have a few humans working for me, in positions of power. Now that's a grand conspiracy theory that a lot of people are going to say, “oh, you know, this guy has gone off the deep end”, but in fact it's an idea that I think is… is plausible although I can't prove it.
H: That's a theory that we would be more or less in agreement with you about and it's the fact that we do have this as a - say, our working hypothesis has gotten us into trouble with… At SOTT we spend a lot of time looking at what is going on in the world and we've spent a lot of time analysing 911, the follow up to 911, who is responsible for 911 and trying to make alliances with other people that are concerned with getting to the truth, and the fact that we are interested in UFOs and in ET and in the possible link, what are these beings, what is their interest in us and is there - heaven help us - a link between ET and 911.
RD: Right. Yeah
H: It means that we get the door slammed in our faces and we've been told by other very serious 911 researchers whose work we quite respect that they would be happy to work with us but only if we stop talking about all of these other issues.
