William Ney

Mr Gallaway -- Note that Hunt's response "The alien presence" was to DC's question about why Kennedy was killed (not a question about Watergate). That is: Hunt first replied that JFK was killed because he intended to give "our most vital secret" to Moscow. DC then asked what that secret was. And Hunt replied with those final three words.

Thanks for this interview, Douglas. Very interesting to say the least. I'm sure you've wondered across the years whether Hunt -- the author of some 50 pulp thrillers -- was pulling your leg with those parting three words, "The alien presence." Seeing your hunger for the whole inside truth, perhaps exasperated that you raised the question again while shaking hands on the street, I can imagine he might have gotten a kick out of giving this lawyer, for dessert as it were, the tastiest truth-turd imaginable. On a scale of ten (ten the most certain), how certain do you feel that he was telling a truth?

Aha. Glad you liked it. I've been listening to your Dark Journ interview today. Just now arriving at the closing section, beginning with Your Lunch With Howard Hunt ...

Having listened to all of the chats this past weekend at the 2015 SSP conference, I've been going since through those from the first SSP conference in Oct 2014. The 2014 chats are somewhat uneven, although these so far are worth watching: "The Man-Made vs ET Issue" - Michael Schratt. Runs thru a dozen or so US non-public R&D projects, with little talk of aliens. "Bullion, Brains and Bonds" - Joseph Farrell. A history of hidden financing of US covert projects since the GOLD WARRIORS (great 2003 book by Seagraves) bullion windfall of 1945. Much talk here too of the early US efforts postwar to contain/gather German aerospace talent and react to the UFO stories of 1947. This talk also has the virtue of being well organized, unlike the following: "The Black Budget" - Catherine Austin Fitts. Focused on what she describes in (somewhat disorganized) detail as massive chronic fraud within and among the Departments of the Federal government during her time there (bush-quayle). The basic move: Congress allocates money for public projects but the money gets funnelled into the "Black Budget" for covert ops and R&D. She was Ass't Secy at HUD and begins the talk with a quote of Oliver North: "HUD is the candy store for covert revenues." "UFOs, the Tower of Babel Moment, and Space Collateralization" - second talk in 2014 by Jos Farrell. Picks up threads from his first rather factual talk, and works toward his speculative suggestions about the political position of the earth in the cosmos. The Robt Morningstar talk is disorganized, but he shows some very interesting photos of the moon surface. Questions about the moon in general strike me as well founded. Those are the five talks from 2014 that I've so far taken in. All are indexed at this link and free on demand: https://secretspaceprogram.org/presentations-2014/

Here is John Brandenburg's web page, with a lot of detail (from his book, I assume) of the physical evidence behind his thesis that two thermonuclear devices were exploded in the low atmosphere of Mars long ago. He is a plasma physicist out of Lawrence Livermore and worked for decades in various classified governmental R&D programs, including at Sandia and on SDI. His bio can be found on the site. He said this past weekend that in the 11 months since his book was published, only two scientists have written with refutations, each of whom he invited to debate in public; neither has yet taken up the offer. I of course have no opinion of my own but the silence seems rather deafening. http://lifeonmars.pub/articles/mars-thermonuclear-explosion/

This short blog entry is the only thing I've ever written in public about UFOs -- provoked by that amazing photograph of Allen Dulles, Chas Cabell, Ed Lansdale and Air Force General Nathan Farragut Twining, latter whom headed the Air Force's post Roswell investigations for many years (insofar as the public is informed of such things) and went on to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during Eisenhower's second term. CIA and Air Force potentates -- surrounding our man Ed Lansdale, in his Air Force uniform. http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2009/08/03/did-martians-cause-the-cold-war/

Many of the talks from the 2014 conference are archived here for free: https://secretspaceprogram.org/presentations-2014/ The talks from this past weekend are currently On Demand for the streaming ticket price at the same site

Aha. Nice to see this post, Douglas. I watched all the presentations live via the online stream, having dipped into UFOlogy and related off and on for many years. Note that Farrell gave TWO talks this year -- and two, closely related, at the 2014 conference. The one you refer to, Douglas, was the second this past weekend. The first was focused more on scientists and engineers, all but unknown to me, who have pursued UFO technologies. Fascinating history. Farrell's overriding theme seems the suggestion we might understand the political position of earth in the cosmos by analogy to the treatment defeated Germany received at Versailles. Speaking thus of Versailles elaborated upon his two talks from last year, when he suggested the earth since Hiroshima was in a dangerous "Tower of Babel Moment" -- reaching dangerously for control of the heavens, perhaps in violation of some old overriding law, and if so on the verge of a cosmic smackdown. How would the various leaders of the earth react if they perceived, or even seriously worried, this was the case? Perhaps that's the key to our sickening postwar history. Etc. Other presentations this week synced with Farrell's -- esp. that of physicist John Brandenberg, who presented his growing body of evidence -- in public domain for a year now without significant criticism -- that two thermonuclear devices were exploded on Mars long ago to destroy the civilization there. Brandenberg first publicized his data -- focused on isotopes found in Mars's atmosphere and rocks -- at a conference in Houston last year, and said this past weekend that the government responded quickly -- by suggesting he publish it. His book came out in November 2014. Easily found at his site online. He suggested this weekend conceiving of the earth's various legendary and mythological histories as filtered accounts of a solar-system war that left Mars a poisoned desert and the Earth a place where surviving powers carried on the contest and perhaps made a peace (along lines of eg the Book of Enoch). Farrell's overall suggestion is that we might understand the cosmic silence that surrounds us (Fermi's puzzle -- Why isn't space filled with intelligent noise?) as an effect of an agreenebt among the surviving cosmic powers as to the disposition of the earth -- an enforced quarantine. And that the treaty was perhaps violated by Hiroshima et seq. That this violation provoked renewed concern and then interference by the cosmic powers. And that that interference in turn has provoked the earthbound powers to struggle (at astronomical expense) to catch up to the superior technologies of the Watchers. The question of money was central to Farrell's talks last year. How do the powers of the earth afford the Secret Space Program(s)? Farrell also suggested this year that our thermonuclear tricks might alarm the Watchers not only because nukes are dangerous but because the underlying physics are a gateway to technology that makes interstellar travel possible. This was the focus of his first talk this past weekend. And the talk by Dr Paul Laviollette, focused on new propulsion and anti-gravity technologies, helped make sense of this. Ie Hiroshima told the Watchers that we were on our way out into the galaxy with our bombs. I confess I am now among those who think the basics of the UFO story are probably true: THEY probably have been here a long time. And if so, THEY are the big, utterly crippling hole in our attempts to make sense of domestic and foreign policy since the war. I've also had a bit of contact in the pat few years with one of the people whom Jim Marrs focused on in his talk at the conference: a Navy officer who says he was "blacked" out of his career as a colonel into the aliens-interface program. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Marrs devote 10 minutes to him and declare him the real deal. A last note: Things may be accelerating, for many reasons long in preparation, since the publication of Brandenberg's book last November. Pres Medvedev a few months later publicly threatened to reveal Russia's experience with the alien presence if Washington did not. Steven Hawking suddenly changed his longstanding mind about the advisability of seeking contact with Them, expressing worry that maybe if They find us they'd squash us like bugs (the Mars treatment described by Brandenberg). And most significantly, perhaps, the "Creative" behind the X-Files is rushing out six new episodes, to air this coming January. "The Truth is Still Out There" the Fox commercials say.

Has Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig's identification of the 6th floor rifle as a 7.65 Mauser been discussed elsewhere on the Forum over the years? Craig, as I imagine you all know, spoke clearly about this on camera (also in 1976) in Mark Lane's documentary Two Men in Dallas. Lane's film is on YouTube in five clips. This second clip contains Craig's discussion of what was found on the 6ht floor: Craig's account on its face strikes me as awfully persuasive, and Lane (in same clip) goes on to support it with some documentation and chat. ??

Howdy Mr Kelly, Can you tell me if/where you folks here have already discussed/accepted/dismissed this footage in which two Secret Service men are pulled off the rear of the target car by their supervisor as they turned (I gather) onto Houston Street? Footage is at YouTube: Thanks. I'm a reader.

Thanks very much. Do you have a pointed reason (that you can share) for posting just this portion of just this document? Eg, is Colson's denial of awareness of the project the "news" here? The memo doesn't say anything of the content of NA's interview with Hunt. Presumuably Hunt said yeah, I did that, working under Colson? If one imagines Colson was not lying here (dubious I guess), then, given Hunt's likely involvement in JFK's murder, perhaps one imagines Hunt was freelancing within the White House: doing JFK Damage Control at the nth-level, where the Bad Guys assume some day the JFK truth will out and the aim is to prepare the People so that they don't care much. IE in this instance -- "Yeah, so somebody in the system offed him, but he offed Diem and wanted to off Castro and, christ, he was a womanizer." ?? Any notion of when your book may be published? Good luck.

The Yankee and Cowboy War is a seminal book -- and beautifully written. A pleasure to re-read across the years. I worked for years with a photocopy of it -- because the few available books were so expensive. Then, lo, about 18 months ago, it seems a rumor circled that Y-C would be reprinted, and the old used copies dropped in value and I got one for $10. A prize. Did you see this interview with Mr O last year: http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/04/...-hot-off-press/ Hats off to him. A patriot who thinks and writes wonderfully about our careering world. PS: I posted something of substance re Yankee-Cowboy at the other thread John Simkin notes above: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry162640

"GEORGE W. BUSH is an emotionally disordered son of a famous Yankee who found some ground beneath his feet when he was turned into a millionaire by genuine Texas Cowboy financiers and told he could ride with them and wear a Stetson." The above is from a piece penned on September 11, 2007 (http://www.newcombat.net/article_tuesday.html#sorrows), and was inspired by my reading of The Yankee and Cowboy War. 1. The Papa Bush-Baby Bush story seems indeed a Yankee-Cowboy story. Baby Bush was not in essence a Cowboy. But sure wanted to be one, and was used effectively by them. In the end he was not (as the saying goes) his father's son. Bush pere was a pure-bred Yankee (indeed his father's son), who rubbed elbows with Cowboys during the Pacific war and then after with the CIA re Cuba. (I'm one of those who believe Bush pere's ne'er do well oil company at some point circa Castro's victory became a CIA affiliate. Whether he himself was Tapped at Yale or just invited postwar by the opportunistic Company to play a little rodeo .... dunno. The CIA had been founded and dominated by Yankees but by 1960 was diversifying: Howard Hunt and Bill Harvey were Cowboys, as were some of the old OSS footsoldiers. Ed Lansdale? Hmm ... Cowboy?) The story of two Bush presidents is, in its vulgar way, Shakespearean: the radical so-called Neo-conservatives who were given control of baby Bush's foreign policy in 2001 had been, beneath the GOP tent, personal enemies of Bush pere going back to the Reagantime. Indeed, their first public spat seems to have come during the Ford Administration, when Ford's Chief of Staff (Rumsfeld) and Rummy's gopher (Cheney) nixed Bush's move to become a leading national figure in support of his anticipated presidential bid. Instead he was given the CIA chair -- which at the time was deemed a kiss of death for presidential aspirants. (Or so goes the story ...) Reagan quietly sidelined Neo-Cons within his administration -- Perle, Weinberger, Wolfowitz, Adelman -- during the 80s, in favor of George Shultz (who ran the Gorbachev policy) and Bush pere (who as VP influenced Reagan, and helped Casey run the CIA, more than is realized). This infuriated the Neo-con hawks -- the originators of the Sunday talk show notion that Bush pere was a "wimp" and a "lap dog." And when in 1991 Bush-Scowcroft then stopped the Gulf War short of Baghdad, allowing Saddam Hussein's regime to survive, they went nuts. But fast-forward to 1999 -- and there we have BABY Bush hiring some of the very same people to advise his presidential campaign on foreign affairs -- people his father and Scowcroft had criticized heavily in their book (A World Transformed) the year before. And (as Woodward reports) when it came time to push the button on Iraq, baby Bush did not consult dad. During early 2004, when "Mission Accomplished" was a joke and Bush's usefulness on the world stage fading fast, I went so far to wonder in print if the Neo-cons might go so far -- should Bush come out of the GOP convention trailing John Kerry in the polls -- as to send the boy president down in his helicopter. Cheney, their reliable man, would then advance to the top spot. The Party would have a martyr to help it limp thru the election. And old foe Bush pere would have been paid back in grisly all-too-human Shakespearean style. Sadly my dream was never tested, as Kerry never succeeded in overtaking baby Bush. 2. So: It seems to me the Yankee-Cowboy distinction is still very much alive in American politics. And Mr O's question from 1977 (above) -- What happens now that the USA's foundational frontier has been closed?" -- helps me think about what happened under Bush-Cheney. The neo-Cowboys who inhabited the Bush-Cheney White House weren't perfectly in the Oglesby mold. The Frontier indeed had closed in Vietnam, and most of them were Jewish Americans for whom the security of Israel was paramount in foreign affairs. Furthermore, the Y-C distinction, during most of our history, was not identical to the distinction between Diplomats and Militarists. But when the Frontier closes, must things tend that way? Can one live in the Pentagon, today, without being a Cowboy? And can any Yankee today lead with the stick? However that may be, the ascension to power of the Likud Lobby Neo-Cons, and the way they used their power, make Mr Oglesby's question active and interesting. That is: We have, now, one answer at least as to what happens to the Pentagon (and the vast political and commercial complex it feeds and takes nourishment from) when the Frontier closes. A: The Cowboys hire themselves out to people who still have frontiers to conquer/defend. Give me a home, where the buffalo roam ... Not that the current Iraq war was in essence a child of the Pentagon. (It seems to me it was mostly forced upon the Pentagon by an eccentric White House cabal.) So perhaps the better answer, in this instance, is: The Pentagon gets shanghaied. By a handful of unpatriotic zealots. Very strange. At best it seems the psychic and economic forces compelling the US military-industrial complex to grow and act constitute a hair trigger. And Mr Oglesby's question, in our day, does seem to roughly translate: Was militarism bred into the USA's bones by its protracted birth on the Frontier? President Obama, of course, has re-hired Mr Gates and Adm. Mullen -- the leaders of the Bush-Cheney Pentagon and foreign policy since the expulsion of the Neo-Cons in 2006 -- and signed off last spring (along with McCain) on their plans to escalate in Pakghanistan, where death and failure wait with gaping jaws. There is no history to suggest anyone can win anything Over There. And so I feel some of the same puzzlement that Mr O expressed above -- puzzlement as to how the US Cowboy continues to survive on contemporary Earth. Perhaps the death of the Cowboy will require the death of the state itself, and Chalmers Johnson's discussion in SORROWS OF EMPIRE is the dark answer to Mr Oglesby's question from 1977. If a shark stops swimming, it dies (the story goes).

Mr Hougan, Very interesting to hear that you find Rosen's conclusions on target and well supported. I had ignored his book, under the impression that it was rehash of Silent Coup -- which I'd always seen as COUNTER to your own views. That is: Secret Agenda's prime thesis (if memory serves) was that the Wgate team, unbeknownst to its masters and (goofy pawn?) Gordon Liddy, was actually a CIA team employed (opportunistically, it seems, perhaps by Helms himself) to assist Nixon to early retirement. Then along came Silent Coup to protect the Company's honor -- by pointing fingers at the Pentagon (the Radford business) and John Dean instead. Perhaps memory ISN'T serving me perfectly well here. But let me ask: 1. Have your views changed much on Watergate since you wrote Secret Agenda -- in particular re institutional CIA involvement & manipulation? 2. Do you see important differences between Rosen's book and Silent Coup? 3. Even if John Dean pushed the button on the Wgate break-ins -- what of import follows? For myself: -- The Radford business seems important to understanding the Nixon White House's siege mentality: to an extent, the famous Enemies that fed their paranoia were on the Right, pissed off for being cut out of the China and North Vietnam talks and determined to protect turf (to put it kindly). -- The Wgate team is indeed best thought of as a CIA team. And the particular history of Nixon and Helms -- which Prouty (re Indonesia 1958), Ehrlichman (in his roman a clef The Company) and Haldeman (memoir and posthumous diaries) throw light on -- is relevant. So I guess I carry around large chunks of Secret Agenda and select bits of Silent Coup. But I no longer think it very important (nay, possible) to understand how precisely the Wgate burglaries got authorized. To a good extent the money has to talk there, and doesn't that mean Mitchell? Beyond that, winks and nods (and nodding-offs misconstrued as such) go a long way with eager beavers like Liddy. I guess the "level of organization" at which the Dean question resides doesn't trigger my own (rather robust) paranoia. So maybe the guy was trying to find his wife ... (Disclosure: I've found a lot of Dean's topical writing at FindLaw valuable over the years. If he's Guilty as Rosen apparently charges, I reckon he's Paid His Debt to Society ...)