UFO UPDATE FROM GARY BEKKUM

Monday, July 28, 2008
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell Hints at UFO ET "Core Story"

The past few days have seen a viral explosion of stories about statements made by Apollo astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon in 1971.

The entire affair, which began with an interview at Kerrang! Radio, appears to be building a small mountain of momentum, with headlines like:

Ex-Astronaut: Aliens Are Real and NASA Knows It

Aliens are out there, says former Nasa astronaut

Astronaut reveals that aliens have better technology than humans

Ex-NASA astronaut 'sure' aliens exist

Even Reuters has posted a video news report on-line.

A quick search of Google News pulled up more than 300 articles.

Curiously, the most important aspect of Dr. Mitchell's testimony to the "Spies, Lies, and Polygraph Tape" affair has received little attention from most of the media outlets.

During the Kerrang! interview, Mitchell stated:

"But I've also been in military circles, and intelligence circles, that know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, that yes, we have been visited. "

It appears that Dr. Mitchell is referring to the so-called UFO "Core Story" of extraterrestrial visitation.

For a quick review of some of the Intelligence Community interest in all things out-of-this-world, I recommend Gus Russo's article, The REAL X-files.

According to the Russo article, a well-placed source Russo calls "Jim" (not his real name), who remains close to high-ranking former U.S. officials told him:

“I believe there’s a ‘core story’,” Jim explained, “but I don’t know what it is. I have been told by people more senior than me that there is some truth to it, but they told me time and time again to stop pursuing it with CIA people and other intel types. Two very senior officials told me they saw briefing books, [however] the only ones who would be cleared to know the story are the most senior Pentagon career officers.” Jim refuses to divulge his sources, but when pressed, he reiterates what they told him: look to the Pentagon and the private sector’s aerospace and weapons labs, etc. US intelligence “doesn’t have labs capable of dealing with something this profound.” He also notes that over the years he has received thousands of UFO-related government documents in unmarked envelopes. Although some are obvious fakes, others, according to Jim, contain information that correlates with known, but still classified, scientific studies. In an intriguing footnote, Jim adds, “I have spoken to three former Presidents and the subject always comes up, not as a briefing, but they also want to know the truth. But apparently they aren’t cleared for it.”





Posted by Gary S. Bekkum / STARpod.org at 10:44 AM 0 comments Links to this post

THE STUPID BIOFUELS DEBATE

From here:

Time for some of that famous outside-the-box thinking. Think- "Post Automobile" and you'll be on the right track. How many french fries are required to produce a gallon of this crap? It's the dumbest of all dumbfuck ideas. The internal combustion engine is as passé as the flat earth. Just let the economy kill the fucking thing rather than searching out ways to reform an obsolete technology. It's high time to rediscover the most essential mode of transportation- legs. Maybe we need to reinvent society so that travel is measured not in miles per french fry but rather in steps. Is there really anyplace worthwhile to go that walking and running and bicycling cannot provide? Is it impossible to recognize that the world got along just fine before Jesus invented Henry Ford and Wilbur Wright? Think in terms of the Indian Nations that were vigorously and happily rubbed out by the Europeans for essentially no other reason than to bring us to this nightmare impasse. Hell- they seemed to manage very nicely without 50 million Chevies farting the world into oblivion.

Just bear in mind that reformers are nothing more than enablers and therefore the enemy of true progress. Our own Gummer grasped the essence of this idea when he committed to 'going raw.' Remember that? Do Luddites and Anarchists not have a point worth considering? Or are they too far outside the box?

The alchemy of transforming food into black gold is nothing more than the desperate act of tossing the axe handle into the fireplace for that last few moments of warmth.

The greatest of mendacious conspiracies? None other than Reform.

Have a good day.

_________________
"How can a nation be great when its bread tastes like Kleenex?" Julia Child

We all knew that the skunk was tough- but now he molders in the gutter with his stringy guts being picked over by wild hermit crabs.

yeah i know. but i've been a little leery of kacen ever since it turned out that he fills his pool with the effluence from the new york city liposuction clinic.

Those with eyes to see/ ears to hear bear witness to the emergence of the Synthetic element of the Platonic-Hegelian Dialectical Trinity of history. The Zeitgeist. In trivial political abstraction this Enjoyed symbology is apperceived as: From the enlightenment of Kennedy/King to darkly nixonian Bushism and then to this Obama moment.

Posted by Gary Bekkum founder of Starstream Research on his blog- Spies, Lies, and Polygraph Tape
Friday, July 18, 2008
Are Reality Uncovered Moderators Fearful of the Truth?

Since one of the moderators at Reality Uncovered decided to shut off my access, thus preventing me from responding to on-going inquiries from RU members, I will continue by responding here.

"Amateur sleuths, using less than ethical methods of investigation, and even less respect for sources and the rules of journalism (apparently due to a general lack of ethical guidance), ignore the prerequisite professional rules for truthful reporting."

From an email sent to Ray Hudson by me yesterday:


There are 20 sub-forums at RU. The last post totals are: chorlton-7, ryan-4, steve-3, ray-3, others-3. AD must be attending a banner's society convention. The site is dominated by the same coterie of choir boys continually- the same crew of debunkers chasing out anyone of differing viewpoint in cacophony of horse laughs.

A Ufologist whom I hold in the highest regard, Jacques Vallee had this to say in an
interview yesterday:

"By denying the reality of the reports, brushing aside the witnesses...and treating them like fools or crooks, the academic skeptics are actually teaching the public that science is impotent at studying the phenomenon."


Add to that 'gratuitous ad hom attacks,' as in the case of Gary Bekkum, and you have perfectly described the methods of RU.

If you're happy with that then more power to ya.

For the record- almost all RU's ideas concerning USG intelligence community interest in the UFO phenomena, Kit Green, and Ron Pandolfi were purloined lock, stock and barrel from the work products of either Starstream Reasearch or Dan Smith. The RU 'researchers' have actually done no real research in these areas but rather have relied on Gary Bekkum to do all the heavy lifting- while at the same time both importuning and compromising his sources. This mendacious courtship has resulted in the forum being used by these same sources for the planting of spooky disinformation and has finally led to the demise of the site's credibility and membership participation. It seems to me that the scape-goating and ultimate banning of Gary Bekkum is simply a cynical attempt to finalize the charade by assuming ownership of Bekkum's research.

It is interesting to note that after 2 years of existence RU has about 170 members of whom 6! are active. The forum currently consists of:

1. withering attacks on Bill Irvin of ATS and Gary Bekkum of Starstream Research
2. a smarmy angel counting religious thread run by a paranoid Christian fundamentalist
3. an ongoing debunk of Ufology by the use of Phil Klass-type methods and
4. maudlin complaints by Chorlton about his various health issues.

Memo to Obama, McCain: No One Wins in a War

by Howard Zinn

Barack Obama and John McCain continue to argue about war. McCain says to keep the troops in Iraq until we “win” and supports sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama says to withdraw some (not all) troops from Iraq and send them to fight and “win” in Afghanistan.

For someone like myself, who fought in World War II, and since then has protested against war, I must ask: Have our political leaders gone mad? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Have they not learned that no one “wins” in a war, but that hundreds of thousands of humans die, most of them civilians, many of them children?

Did we “win” by going to war in Korea? The result was a stalemate, leaving things as they were before with a dictatorship in South Korea and a dictatorship in North Korea. Still, more than 2 million people — mostly civilians — died, the United States dropped napalm on children, and 50,000 American soldiers lost their lives.

Did we “win” in Vietnam? We were forced to withdraw, but only after 2 million Vietnamese died, again mostly civilians, again leaving children burned or armless or legless, and 58,000 American soldiers dead.

Did we win in the first Gulf War? Not really. Yes, we pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, with only a few hundred US casualties, but perhaps 100,000 Iraqis died. And the consequences were deadly for the United States: Saddam was still in power, which led the United States to enforce economic sanctions. That move led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, according to UN officials, and set the stage for another war.

In Afghanistan, the United States declared “victory” over the Taliban. Now the Taliban is back, and attacks are increasing. The recent US military death count in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. What makes Obama think that sending more troops to Afghanistan will produce “victory”? And if it did, in an immediate military sense, how long would that last, and at what cost to human life on both sides?

The resurgence of fighting in Afghanistan is a good moment to reflect on the beginning of US involvement there. There should be sobering thoughts to those who say that attacking Iraq was wrong, but attacking Afghanistan was right.

Go back to Sept. 11, 2001. Hijackers direct jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing close to 3,000 A terrorist act, inexcusable by any moral code. The nation is aroused. President Bush orders the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan, and the American public is swept into approval by a wave of fear and anger. Bush announces a “war on terror.”

Except for terrorists, we are all against terror. So a war on terror sounded right. But there was a problem, which most Americans did not consider in the heat of the moment: President Bush, despite his confident bravado, had no idea how to make war against terror.

Yes, Al Qaeda — a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics — was apparently responsible for the attacks. And, yes, there was evidence that Osama bin Laden and others were based in Afghanistan. But the United States did not know exactly where they were, so it invaded and bombed the whole country. That made many people feel righteous. “We had to do something,” you heard people say.

Yes, we had to do something. But not thoughtlessly, not recklessly. Would we approve of a police chief, knowing there was a vicious criminal somewhere in a neighborhood, ordering that the entire neighborhood be bombed? There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 — exceeding the number of deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks. Hundreds of Afghans were driven from their homes and turned into wandering refugees.

Two months after the invasion of Afghanistan, a Boston Globe story described a 10-year-old in a hospital bed: “He lost his eyes and hands to the bomb that hit his house after Sunday dinner.” The doctor attending him said: “The United States must be thinking he is Osama. If he is not Osama, then why would they do this?”

We should be asking the presidential candidates: Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism?

Howard Zinn is author of “A People’s History of the United States.”

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company