The Pentagon released a trove of documents related to the AAWSAP/AATIP program that famously hunted paranormal phenomena and UFOs at Skinwalker Ranch in the 2000s. Its official purpose was supposedly to investigate breakthrough aerospace technologies, though Bigelow Aerospace always intended the $22 million contracted for the initial research to probe the mysteries of interdimensional poltergeists and flying saucers to “reverse engineer” (though they used the term wrongly) new technologies from the seemingly magical properties they imagined for unseen sky specters. The new documents contain some real doozies that only serve to emphasize how unserious, slipshod, and, frankly, stupid the Bigelow-helmed UFO research really was. This is important to highlight because the new Pentagon UFO office mandated by Congress appears purposely designed to restart the exact same research that AAWSAP failed at fifteen years ago and to box the Pentagon into rehiring the same unserious fantasists who wasted millions chasing shadows in the desert during the last go-round. Tabloid headlines falsely claimed that the documents were proof the “Pentagon” had concluded that seeing a UFO can cause health effects including brain damage and nerve problems, but this was not an official military conclusion. It was, instead, the conclusion of the Bigelow team’s reports to the Pentagon, which were based on, well, garbage data. According to one of the Defense Intelligence Reference Documents, as the Pentagon labels such reports, the Bigelow team gathered their evidence from unreliable sources, including The National Enquirer and Penthouse magazine, along with back issues of UFO fan magazines. Collating tabloid, porn, and fanzine UFO coverage, the team concluded that UFOs were responsible for “human-related physiological effects,” including 129 alien abductions, 75 cases of paralysis, 75 cases of time loss, 4 sexual encounters with space aliens, 4 cases of baldness, and 2 cases of itchiness, among dozens of other effects. For some reason, the researchers also included automobile problems as “human-related physiological effects.” Equally disconcerting is the analytical methodology, which betrays the fantastical nature of the Bigelow team’s research. According to the documents, the team investigated paranormal phenomena using a framework invented by Jacques Vallée using an anomaly rating scale, which included categories for “elves,” “yetis,” “poltergeists,” and even spontaneous human combustion. (This is no surprise, since Vallée worked with Bigelow for decades and was close colleagues with several Bigelow AAWSAP contractors.) If it was on In Search Of…, it was part of their research methodology. This is disconcerting but not unexpected. The truth is that Jacques Vallée’s work, rooted as it is in misunderstood, misrepresented, and falsified research materials, has long been used by the federal government to investigate UFOs. The NSA relied on him as a research source, as did the Condon Report. Vallée himself reported in the 1970s his own pained reaction at learning that intelligence agencies were using his books: “Hal [Puthoff] said his high-level contacts walked around with UFO books in their briefcases, particularly mine. I found this depressing: Doesn’t that imply that they know less than I do?” And half a century later, despite decades of evidence that Vallée’s “research” is fruitless and the data behind his ideas dubious—his most recent book accepted as true geezers’ tall tales about seeing the military seize a crashed UFO when they were in elementary school—Vallée is currently angling for a government contract to analyze alleged UFO wreckage while his colleagues and cronies are about to be swept back into power, leading America’s UFO investigation straight back to the 1970s. UPDATE: Tucker Carlson had Lue Elizondo on to discuss the reports and the two men misrepresented by implication, suggesting they were official Pentagon conclusions and not speculative contractor reports. Other media, including Salon and Newsweek followed suit.
13 Comments
Kent
4/6/2022 12:21:10 pm
You give tabloids and porn mags short schrift Sirrah! I will carry no truck for that. You may be too young to remember, but the Enquirer broke the Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards Fucking His Photographer On The Campaign Trail story. Penthouse at least in the 70s and 80s was always a reliable source. And the articles were good too.
Reply
Bruce Willith
4/9/2022 12:40:58 am
For every legit story that broke in tabloids there are100 articles about 10 year old mothers of 6, 800,000 year old sphinxes, Liberace's prowess as a ladykiller. and thousands of giant skeletons stashed away by the Smithsonian. Getting it right one percent of the time does not instill confidence when these materials form the backbone of your bibliography.
Reply
Kent
4/9/2022 03:00:22 pm
Like any art form, and make no mistake, the tabloid is an art form, 5% give or take is good and 95% give or take is bad. Cf. country, rock, rap music and TV. Your post is a 95%er.
Edward R Obvious
4/12/2022 12:34:56 pm
I doubt that the typical Colavito reader has any truck with the Daily Tattler that they see in the checkout line with a cover proclaiming that Elvis is alive and managing the last remaining Radio Shack in Maine. Whether or not a celebrity is bopping the wrong person is eventually confirmed by more rigorous investigation and writing. Even if some tabloid reporter catches lightning in a bottle and stumbles on a legitimate lead in between reporting on the continuing saga of the Pope's love child with Taylor Swift. You are preaching to the wrong congregation.
Garbage, garbage, garbage
4/6/2022 03:17:09 pm
I wanna go back into the past - when there were less morons !!!
Reply
Clete
4/9/2022 06:19:23 pm
Wrong. There were as many morons as there are today. The times were different. There were not as many media outlets open to anyone with a phone or a computer. There were fewer elected to local, state and federal government office.
Reply
Rock Knocker
4/6/2022 08:32:49 pm
Now I need a strong drink….
Reply
Matt
4/7/2022 08:40:39 am
How does an unexplained explosion have no lasting physical effects (AN1)?
Reply
Chip
4/9/2022 12:50:36 am
Relatively minimal time spent with Google reveals that the description of the Avis case appears to come from a list of cases (sic) put together by John F. Schuessler in 1996 (https://uap101.com/human-related-physical-effects-of-ufos-in-close-proximity/) and the description of the Clifton Bore case on the right comes from a list of Australian cases put together by Keith Basterfield in 2005 (https://www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbabduct0505.htm). While the "AN Rating" chart shown does appear in one of the DIRDs (https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/dia/AAWSAP-DIRDs/DIRD_26-DIRD_Anomalous_Acute_and_Subacute_Field_Effects_on_Human_Biological_Tissues.pdf), I'm not seeing the other material in any of the documents at the URL you provided (https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-advanced-aerospace-weapon-system-applications-program-aawsap-documentation/). Please document where those passages (which you label as "DIRD excerpt citing National Enquirer" and "DIRD excerpt citing National Enquirer" actually occur in the released DIRD documents. Also, as a matter of balance, I'd point you and your readers to "Review of Advanced Aerospace Contract Deliverables" (https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/dia/AAWSAP/U-429-09-DWO-IM.pdf) which describes reviews of 13 of the DIRDs by outside experts including staff as Sandia National Lab.
Reply
Chip
4/9/2022 02:58:02 am
One slight mea culpa regarding the comment I submitted earlier this evening -- the "Anomalous Acute and Subacute Field Effects on Human Biological Tissues" DIRD (https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/dia/AAWSAP-DIRDs/DIRD_26-DIRD_Anomalous_Acute_and_Subacute_Field_Effects_on_Human_Biological_Tissues.pdf) does *reference* the Schuessler Catalog in Appendix A, which provides a summary table of alleged effects with their frequencies. Don't see any reference to the Australian case in that DIRD. So...totally fair game to point to issues with data quality in that source; not fair game to mislabel an extract from that source as "DIRD excerpt citing National Enquirer" -- or did I miss it in one of the other documents?
Reply
Brian
4/10/2022 07:40:25 pm
Any way to make sure Gillibrand sees this? Maybe she'd get shamed into dropping her pushing of the loonies.
Reply
Kent
4/11/2022 03:52:39 pm
If only you had access to a worldwide computer network and a Capitol Hill phonebook. Or paper, an envelope, and postage. Or the slightest bit of initiative.
Reply
An Anonymous Nerd / Nerd11135
4/12/2022 07:22:24 am
It would be nice. But, really, her staff should've looked into this already. If they haven't, or they have and she did her thing anyway, it's probably because she doesn't care a damn. She doesn't seem to realize that most of the Fringe won't vote for her.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
September 2024
|