Tag: Project Blue Book

Former Pentagon Official Calls for Big UFO Reveal After Secret Investigation

by Michelle Basch                   July 26, 2018                  (wtop.com)

• Retired Air Force Col. David Shea, 80, was the U.S. Air Force press spokesman from 1967 to 1971. In 1969 he announced the end of Project Blue Book by concluding that there was no threat to national security, no sign of advanced technology and no evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial. Retiring from the Air Force after 29 years, Shea then spent 20-plus years working for Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon.

• Shea is a staunch skeptic of the existence of UFO’s from other worlds. “I would believe if I saw some evidence that showed we were visited by alien spacecraft, but there hasn’t been evidence to my mind of such,” says Shea.  (see 2:24 minute video of Col. Shea below)

• In 1947, when a veteran pilot reported seeing nine ‘flying saucers’ near Mt. Rainier in Washington, the Army Air Corps began to investigate. By the end of 1949, the Air Force had determined that “… there was no threat, and there was no visitation, there was no advanced technology.” But the Air Force continued to investigate UFOs under projects such as Project Blue Book.

• As a public relations man, Shea thinks that the Air Force inadvertently created a PR nightmare. “What was initially an intelligence matter quickly evolved into a PR problem of the greatest magnitude,” says Shea. “The Air Force, ignoring public opinion on the subject, failed to communicate its conviction that UFOs were no cause for alarm and consequently was unable to convince the American public that what it was saying about UFOs was true.” “During its more-than-20-year history of investigating flying saucers, the Air Force has been accused of almost every conceivable sin, and had been guilty of most,” says Shea.

• Shea is not swayed at all by the NY Times’ revelation of a recent Pentagon program that studied UFOs and the release of several military videos of UFOs. “They saw something, but we don’t know what it is, and we don’t have the evidence to suggest what it may be. So again, it comes back to the word ‘evidence.’” Shea thinks that with the closing of Project Blue Book, the government ‘washed its hands of UFOs’. So he wonders, “Why would the government want to do that again? …We’ve been there, done that.”

• Shea says that the Air Force was placed in the impossible position of trying to prove that aliens are not whizzing around above Earth. According to Shea, despite “exhaustive” investigations and studies of UFOs, the government has come up with nothing. “No eureka moment. No threat. No advanced technology. No alien spacecraft.” “You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. Why doesn’t the other guy prove that (UFOs do) exist?” he said. Asked if, to his knowledge, the government has covered up evidence of alien visitation in the past, Shea says, “Absolutely not. It would be impossible to do so in our environment of leakers and whistleblowers.”

• Shea thinks the Air Force is misunderstood. “The Air Force has never said that UFOs aren’t spacecraft from another civilization. What the Air Force has said is that there’s no convincing evidence that they present a threat, or they advance scientific knowledge, or that they are alien spacecraft. Convincing evidence is the key, and that’s what we don’t have,” said Shea. Just because a military pilot spots or chases a UFO doesn’t mean the unidentified object should be considered a threat to national security, said Shea. “I would say we would be concerned if they were fired upon. We would be concerned if they started bombing our bases. None of that has happened, so whatever they’re seeing doesn’t seem to be hostile in nature. Not to worry, is what I would say.”

[Editor’s Note] Where is the evidence of UFOs? Take a look at this website. At 80 years old, Shea is clinging to his Air Force pension with both hands. The government hides all evidence of extraterrestrials, and then uses the lack of evidence to prove that extraterrestrials do not exist. Shea’s reasoning is: ‘so long as the government says that UFOs do not pose a threat, then who cares what they are?’ Shea is completely brain washed. He thinks that the whole issue of UFOs and extraterrestrials should remain hidden from the public in black projects and secret space programs. This is the attitude of the ‘old guard’ military and government authority, and this is exactly why our society has been prevented from making any real technological advancement in the past 70 years. So keep spouting your disinformation, Col. Shea, and keep collecting those retirement checks.


NORTHERN VIRGINIA — If evidence proving that extraterrestrials visited Earth has been squirreled away behind locked doors in Nevada, a former Pentagon official is calling for a big reveal.

“Show it to the National Academy of Sciences. Don’t hide it. Show it! We’ve been waiting for it! We’ve been waiting for it forever,” retired Air Force Col. David Shea said, raising his voice. “But so far, that hasn’t happened, and I don’t know why.”

Shea, 80, was the Air Force’s press spokesman on UFOs at the Pentagon from 1967 to 1971. He considers himself an “agnostic” when it comes to whether some unidentified flying objects are ships piloted by intelligent beings from faraway worlds.

      Retired Air Force Col. David Shea

“I would believe if I saw some evidence that showed we were visited by alien spacecraft, but there hasn’t been evidence to my mind of such,” he said in an interview at his Northern Virginia home.

In 1969, Shea wrote the news release that announced the end of Project Blue Book, an Air Force investigation of more than 12,000 UFO reports.

It concluded that there was no threat to national security, no sign of advanced technology and no evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial.

And with that, it appeared to the public that the government had washed its hands of UFOs.

But in December, almost 50 years after Project Blue Book ended, came explosive news.

The New York Times reported that Bigelow Aerospace had been storing material recovered from “unidentified aerial phenomena” in its buildings in Las Vegas as part of a secret Pentagon UFO investigation project called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).

Shea was not surprised by news of the project’s existence, but he thinks if more people were aware of the government’s history with UFOs, they would better understand why, in his opinion, the government should not get involved again.

“The UFOs never seem to go away,” he said.


2:24 minute video of Ret Col. David Shea discussing the lack of evidence of UFOs



FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

Littlefinger Chases Aliens in History’s Good-Looking UFO Drama

by Tim Surette                 July 18, 2018                    (tvguide.com)

• A television series entitled “Project Blue Book” is in production for the History Channel, based on the real UFO investigations by the Air Force in the ’50s and ’60s. Robert Zemeckis, director of “Contact” and “Forrest Gump”, is behind the show. Aidan Gillen, who plays Little Finger in HBO’s “Game of Thrones”, plays J. Allen Hynek in the History Channel series.

• As portrayed in the trailer below, Gillen’s character, J. Allen Hynek, initially doubts the existence of UFOs and then tells anyone who will listen that there are aliens out there, much as the real Hynek did.

• The stories are pulled from the actual declassified files of Project Blue Book, a military program that studied the existence of unidentified flying objects based on eyewitness accounts. However, the series will be more about government cover-ups than the aliens themselves.


Anyone who tells you aliens don’t exist is a fat liar, and finally someone on television other than that weirdo “It was aliens” guy is here to help us spread the truth about the existence of our intergalactic neighbors. Game of Thrones’ Aidan Gillen stars in History’s upcoming Project Blue Book, a drama about real UFO investigations by the Air Force in the ’50s and ’60s, back when our species was still worth it for extraterrestrials to be curious about.



Aidan Gillen (left) as J. Allen Hynek

The first extended trailer is a two-minute journey of Gillen’s character J. Allen Hynek initially doubting the existence of UFOs and then telling anyone who will listen that there are aliens out there deforming children and tearing up our Air Force. The stories are pulled from the actual declassified files of Project Blue Book, a military program that studied the existence of unidentified flying objects based on eyewitness accounts. However, the series will be more about government cover-ups than little green men, so don’t expect to see the Washington Monument blown up.

       the real J. Allen Hynek

Robert Zemeckis, director of Contact and Forrest Gump, is behind the show, which is the latest from the network that continues to teeter on success with historical dramas after initially being dominated by black-and-white footage of WWII. Vikings is great and will conclude its fifth season later this year, but military drama Six was canceled after two seasons and Knightfall had a lukewarm debut when it premiered late last year.

Project Blue Book does not have a premiere date yet.


2:54 minute trailer for the History Channel’s Project Blue Book



FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

A Rational Defense Against the Irrational Bashing of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

bias-word-cloud-squareThe good news unbeknownst to many is that much of the debunking criticism against the extraterrestrial hypothesis, ufology, exopolitics, experiencers, socially conscious insiders and/or whistleblowers can be considered as rationally flawed. 

Institutional defenders of conventional, official truths have sometimes avoided the UFO question but have occasionally misrepresented facts. For example, as physicist Stanton Friedman often points out, the Secretary of the Air Force D. Quarles said to reporters that no flying saucer had flown over the U.S.; that only 3% of reports received by Project Blue Book remained “unknown”and that eventually even that percentage would be identified as conventional phenomena or illusions. But in, truth, the percentage of overall “unknowns” which had been presented earlier inside the Air Force by Project Blue Book’s Special Report number 14 had been 21.5%. Furthermore, if the witnesses level of education was greater and the case provided greater details, the percentage of “unknowns” went up to 30%. Moreover, a chi square analysis performed by Battelle Memorial Institute comparing “unknowns” with the “knowns” (or clearly identified objects) gave a probability of less than 1% that the “unknowns” would simply be misperceptions or mistakes. Therefore, there was at least a truly puzzling phenomenon taking place (in fact worldwide) even though it was being publicly dismissed while secretly reported  in a completely different manner.  

An accumulation of observations is important and an accumulation of analyzed witness testimonies does not have to be a form of weak or irrelevant evidence in the natural sciences. Inductive reasoning is most fundamental to the advancement of SCIENCE because experience is what brings in data and information that requires new explanations.  New scientifically designed, international, anonymous surveys with a larger, anonymous population like that conducted by F.R.E.E. (the Edgar Mitchell Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial and Extraordinary Encounters (www.experiencer.org)) provide statistical patterns that increase the gravitas of testimonial evidence. It is unreasonable to simply think that thousands of witnesses are lying or definitely mistaken in their observations although they are willing to anonymously answer hundreds of questions. There is a place for human testimony, not only in the social sciences and in a court of law but also in the natural sciences. In part it depends on how scientifically that testimony is acquired and treated. This statistical quantitative and qualitative data (which in some important aspects contradicts popular notions about extraterrestrials) must be taken into account. 

Science advances when theories adapt to evidence and experience and theories should not be considered final but, rather, well-organized, temporary and probable explanations that best explain phenomena and data accumulating through experience.  Taken as well-organized explanations – hopefully with predictive power – theories must evolve as new data and experiences are registered and accepted. However, oftentimes, the acceptance of data and phenomena is precluded by biases and there often are sociological and psychological reasons to unscientifically reject phenomena that don’t fit in well with accepted theory. 

It is becoming clear that we only perceive a limited segment of reality. There may well be ‘laws of physics’, inter-reality processes and types of energies that contend with phenomena not currently accepted by mainstream science, an endeavor still excessively biased toward representing all experienced reality as based upon materialism and mechanicism. This occurs in spite of alternative implications from quantum physics regarding the “de-materialization” of matter and the inseparable role of choice, consciousness and the observer affecting what seems to be a non-local, information substratum.

Status quo power networks traditionally reject new perceptions of reality both when new instruments extend human detection and decoding capacities (remember Galileo’s telescope and Van Leewenhoek’s use of the microscope) and when theories and underlying worldviews need to be modified to account for those detections. But this holding on at all costs to a classical preference for exclusivist materialism and mechanicism lends itself to the fallacy of trying to explain all phenomena under specific and previously accepted ad hoc explanations. Regardless of how thoroughly the scientific method has been followed, this often means trying to explain some phenomena which MAY be conventionally explained as if it necessarily follows that their explanation MUST be conventional. This is also popularly also called “dogmatism.”

But it is becoming quite acceptable for educated individuals to recognize that there indeed is an abundance of recurrent phenomena (“anomalies” from the perspective of conventional theories) unremittingly reported by credible individuals and groups around the world; phenomena which – if seriously considered – bring into question the completeness of classical materialist and mechanicist explanations. Furthermore, individuals not intimately associated with any of the major modern institutions often have the willingness and freedom to openly consider these phenomena real and significant. Some even know that their formal acceptance would logically require re-assessing known theories and suggesting alternative scientific hypotheses. Some are – thankfully – taking the lead to make this happen.

 Baye’s Theorem helps us ASSESS the probability that a hypothesis among others is valid based on new experience. In the XXVIII Century Reverend Thomas Bayes tried to show how to use new evidence to update beliefs. It goes hand in hand with induction and not with a rigid, unequivocal logical deduction. Through induction, we approximately “know” that it is more likely that Earth will continue turning and that tomorrow there’ll be another sunrise, but we don’t know this with absolute certainty.  Like the so-called “principle of parsimony” (or “Occam’s Razor”) Baye’s Theorem is more like a “heuristic,” which can be understood as a general rule of thumb helping us to assess the validity or usefulness of a hypothesis. Both are “shortcuts” simply assisting us to come up with probable explanations. However, if we apply them mechanically based on wrong premises about reality they may even sidetrack us into not recognizing more feasible and obvious explanations.

Baye’s Theorem requires having several hypotheses at hand in order to compare them. It is structured to help us come up with an approximate probability and it states that The Probability of an Hypothesis Explaining the New Results = The Probability of Obtaining the New Results if the Hypothesis is True ÷ The Probability of Getting the New Results Whether the Hypothesis is True or Not. Then, multiply that division by The Probability of the Hypothesis Before Considering the New Results.

Just like Baye’s Theorem is a practical recommendation attempting to approximately give us a clue on the probability of the validity of an hypothesis by also considering several competing hypotheses in light of new information regarding phenomena, “Occam’s Razor” is not like a physical principle or a principle set in stone as an unfailing rule.  The latter (re-stated by several philosophers following Aristotelian thinking but also more associated with theologian, nominalist philosopher and Franciscan friar William of Occam) basically states: “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” To my understanding, this means that when an explanation is sufficient to explain a phenomenon, it is not recommended to seek a greater number of alternative explanations. However, in the case of phenomena challenging conventional explanations, the question would also be if all possible “sufficient explanations” rest upon a classical materialist-mechanicist worldview or, in effect, that the most straightforward and sufficient explanation would be a hypothesis that better fits or corresponds with the facts, however challenging.

Another way of stating “Occam’s Razor” is that it is generally preferable not to assume more hypothesis as causes than the minimum necessary to explain a phenomenon. Said differently, trying to extend the materialist and mechanicist worldviews (and paradigms) in convoluted ways in order to reductionistically explain (or to explain away) the experiential facts and “anomalous” data gathered around the UFO Phenomenon, may actually be not following Aristotle’s and Occam’s recommendation but instead doing just the opposite. While exclusivist materialism is clearly incorrect and insufficient, materialism in itself may be correct but only as an integral part of a network of metaphysical positions, each explaining “reality” from a different angle and all of them arising from a deeper pattern. We will need to understand that “deeper pattern” in order to make sense of phenomena that objectively combine subjective and psychic aspects altering conventional physical life.

Once again, these “heuristics” are basically recommendations generally useful on how to proceed to choose among various hypotheses that might explain a phenomenon. Moreover, unfortunately “Occam’s Razor” has often been misunderstood by closed-minded skeptics (normally defending conventional theories associated with materialism and mechanicism) in their blindly dogmatic search for every which way to ridicule or dismiss evidence pointing toward the “extraterrestrial hypothesis” (or variations within that hypothesis) pertaining to some of the most ‘anomalous’ aspects of the UFO phenomenon.

There’s still another recommendation that can be considered as a useful heuristic. It is the advice to avoid Type Two Errors. In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis one tries to cancel out by using evidence to the contrary. In statistical hypothesis testing, a Type II Error (or Error of the Second Kind) is the failure to reject a FALSE null hypothesis. In other words, it is a failure to detect some aspect of reality that is suggested by the statistical evidence. This becomes a useful heuristic to think about any accepted percentage of truly unconventional UFO cases.

The concept that “UFO’s are nothing but natural phenomena or phenomena that can be explained by conventional science” would be a false null hypothesis that has not been invalidated based on the best UFO evidence and statistics. This is because the evidence and statistics clearly also suggest that something truly distinct and quite possibly anomalous is going on. Fixated UFO debunkers (and debunkers of the reasonable likelihood of there being genuine “experiencers” interacting with a variety of intelligent extraterrestrial beings which may be able to manipulate spacetime in unconventional ways) are clearly committing a Type Two Error or Error of the Second Kind.

The relevant and scientifically honest (and highly relevant for humanity) situation here is that the “extraterrestrial hypothesis” or ETH (if not limited to a “nuts & bolts” approach) may well be the MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD HYPOTHESIS OR EXPLANATION. In general this hypothesis is not discarded within some foreign governments and Air Force teams researching “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” or “Anomalous Aerial Phenomena” (like the Chilean CEFAA or Committee for the Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena functioning under the General Secretary of the DGCA (the Ministerial Department of Civil Aeronautics), itself under the jurisdiction of the Chilean Air Force).

The initial (often not quoted) step in the “scientific method” is observation of a phenomenon in the natural world. While individual testimony of an anomaly in a non-controlled setting may be considered a weak piece of evidence, the fact that thousands upon thousands (including some astronomers)  have observed and reported UFOs that resist conventional explanations can be considered part of the initial step. Today, besides these individual testimonies (given to civilian and military institutions) there have been a few scientifically conducted surveys (like the anonymous international survey Edgar Mitchell Foundation for Research on Extraterrestrial and Extraordinary Encounters). As witness testimony goes, the latter is stronger from a natural science point of view. However, besides witness testimony, after-the-event analysis of photographs, radar cases, landing traces with soil modification and other forms of “physical evidence” also accumulate in favor of the “Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH).”

The ETH hypothesis is neither discarded beforehand (for instance by introducing pre-conceived conclusions into the premises) by the high-level military and scientific French GEIPAN (Study Group and Information on Non-Identified Aerospace Phenomenon) analysts working under the jurisdiction of CNES (the National Center for Space Studies) who in 1999 produced the so-called “COMETA Report.” Likewise, this reasonable hypothesis is endorsed by the “Sigma/3AF Commission” of the Aeronautical & Astronomical Association of France. In fact, given the evidence available, the ETH cannot be reasonably discarded in advance without incurring dishonesty. Sigma/3AF considers the ETH valid and plausible. They are scientists and are being reasonable – rather than dogmatic – based on a rational analysis of UAP/UFO cases.

Moreover, it might be possible to improve “after-the-fact ufology” by propitiating field experiments that interact with the phenomenon. If consciousness (besides objectivity) is a key ingredient for their success, so be it. The science-based ufologist expanding his or her methods would learn to work with this.

Interactive field experiments using instruments and live empirical observation to test hypothesis might be achievable with the assistance of CE-5 approaches, “prime contactees,” adequate preparation, equanimity and fearlessness and – above all – a respectful attitude of any intelligences behind the phenomenon as well as experiencer-contact processes that involve consciousness, group effort, feelings and ideologies. Through this “experimental ufology” we may complete the steps of the scientific method pursuant genuine UFOs: Observation of a phenomenon, gathering information about what is known about it, proposing a reasonable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, testing the hypothesis, analyzing the results, concluding if they verify the hypothesis or not, sharing the method, results, and conclusions with other scientists, replicating the research and – eventually – modifying theory.

Humanity needs its academic, religious and political leaders to come to terms with the fact that the ETH is a reasonable and rational perspective backed-up by the finest inductively-derived, independently assessed and cross-tabulated evidence gathered by sincere, mentally sound, capable and reputable UFO researchers across several decades; by some courageous and honest scientists, a good number of political, military and intelligence community whistleblowers and witnesses and by thousands of individuals from around the world (individuals who for the most part don’t do it for personal gain but who, instead, oftentimes face ridicule from peers in the name of truth).

This evidence also includes, highly trained witnesses capable of recognizing a variety of flying objects, alleged landings leaving anomalous and analyzed physical signatures, clear visual, radar and radar-visual sightings, military intercept missions; photographic and film analyses passing adequate tests, the analysis of a few solid objects with highly anomalous characteristics (such as those which podiatric surgeon Roger K. Leir collected from alleged abductee-experiencers) and leaked or formerly classified government documents that indicate longstanding, official interest in “flying discs,” “flying saucers” or “UFO anomalies.”

Moreover, after thousands upon thousands of psychologically healthy and socially functional “citizen-experiencers” reporting intelligent physical interactions with otherworldly extraterrestrial beings; after metallic-looking disc-shaped, triangular-shaped, sphere-shaped and tubular-shaped objects have been reported zigzagging and departing in abrupt ways defying momentum and inertia (sometimes after apparently interacting with witnesses for instance by responding with right-angle formations) the lack of formal academic investigation onto what may be going on (at least from a social and psychological perspective) is a failure against modern, humanistic, democratic and scientific ideals.

It simply looks as if FEAR and personal convenience got the upper hand in the innards of modern academic and political institutions since facing the facts would probably challenge the premises those institutions are based in and thus internal social forces arise to prevent individuals from stepping out of line. To this we must add possible private interests to take advantage of technological developments besides the national security need to maintain a possible advanced technology out of reach from enemies; something which can be overdone and – once a vast secret apparatus around this issues has been established – it becomes increasingly difficult to eventually inform civilians as time passes by. Perhaps many unconstitutional actions were taken throughout the decades at least since 1947, especially if taboo, ridicule and a highly classified secrecy did not allow for the application of constitutional supervision or checks and balances.

Nonetheless, the forces of social control (among them ridicule), or even active repression and suppression cannot forever hold back the truth in order to sustain the status quo or an outmoded way of thinking, especially if the intermittent and phenomenon were to be interactive and clearly related with human interests. 

In relation to UFOs, for the Principle of Parsimony (a.k.a. “Occam’s Razor”) multiplying explanations to uphold the materialist-mechanicist premises may not be the way to arrive at a “sufficient explanation.”  Then, Baye’s Theorem asks us to compare several hypotheses and not to discard any plausible one offhand. Finally, the advice to avoid Type Two Errors or Errors of the Second Kind (the failure to detect some aspect of reality which is suggested by the statistical evidence) also reminds us to become aware of our blinding cognitive biases when the evidence is displayed before us within a complex phenomenon. I wonder how many “Close Encounters of the Second Kind” interesting pieces of unique evidence (as described by J. Allen Hynek’s six-fold classification scale for UFO encounters) have been so dismissed…

All of these HEURISTICS basically warn us against inflexibly holding on to our conventional ‘pet’ theories. In relation to truly anomalous UFOs and in the offing human-extraterrestrial interactive encounters we seriously need to change our premises and face the facts.

To conclude, the three heuristics mentioned are not inimical with the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) and, what is more, an intelligent use of them clearly suggests that the ETH MUST be seriously considered. It is a matter of time before good old common sense prevails as the need to adapt to reality has the real final say with its own complex (emergent and self-organizing) ways to assert itself.

Copyright © 2019 Exopolitics Institute News Service. All Rights Reserved.