July 30, 2012 By Joseph P. Farrell

This is one of those moments when one slaps oneself on the forehead, and says "(Insert your name here), you blockhead!"  Well, I've inserted my name into that sentence, because I was just sent the following very interesting article and commentary by Nick Redfern on the famous - or depending on one's lights, infamous - Spitzbergen, Norway, crashed and recovered UFO story:

The Spitsbergen UFO: A “Plant”?

Now, the reason I'm slapping myself on the forehead is because when my friend P.H. shared this article with me, I had one of those moments where you realize that you have overlooked an obvious thing, and a relevant thing, to some of the ideas and concepts you've been kicking around in your head, or, even writing about.

While I'm not a ufologist by any stretch of the imagination, this case when it became known to me years ago, both intrigued me, and gave me profound misgivings, and I share ufology's skepticism over the whole incident. But what I want to point to here is Redfern's analysis toward the end of the article:

"And yet, that curious one-word note, scrawled many years previous by an anonymous NSA employee, continues to puzzle me. Rather than indicating an outright hoax, the “PLANT” reference suggested that the Spitsbergen story (even if bogus) had been disseminated officially, possibly to cloud and confuse the rumors surrounding crashed-UFO incidents in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

"Of course, this begs the questions: (A) How many more “UFO crash” stories may have had their origins in the world of government/intelligence-orchestrated programs of disinformation and psychological warfare; and (B) why the need for such actions?

"Perhaps certain governments really do have crashed UFOs in their possession and wish to swamp the real data with so much faked material that the former will get buried, hidden and confused by the latter. Or, maybe there has never been a real crashed UFO event – ever – but certain governments, at the height of the Cold War, dearly wished to promote such scenarios as a means to frighten and intimidate the enemy."

Redfern, in my opinion, gets it exactly right here. If governments have recovered extra-terrestrial craft, they are likely to attempt to obfuscate details of their recovery; similarly, it makes sense, as Redfern avers, if governments have not recovered such craft, but are attempting to convince their enemies that they have as a psychological warfare operation. In each case - that of having really recovered advanced extra-terrestrial technology, and that of simply creating a story - the target audience is the same: human beings.

But now let's entertain the idea that there really are extra-terrestrials, and that they really are visiting this planet, and in entertaining this idea, let's look at the psychological warfare scenario a bit more closely. Let's make one final assumption: let's assume that what many people within the UFOlogy community believe, is true, and that we are being visited by many different species of ETs: grays, "reptilians", Nordics...the whole extra-terrestrial pantheon. Suppose, for a moment, that governments were aware of these, and that they were aware of the different species and of tensions between them, and perhaps has learned a bit about their differing psychologies.

Is it conceivable, given all these assumptions, that the ultimate targets of psychological operations are not human at all? Could the confusing claims of differing physiologies and crash-and-recovery of such craft be intended for entirely different targets, as, for example, in the intention to send the message "We have recovered the technology of your mortal enemy and nemesis?"

While all of this is purely speculative, I raise them because they point to a third possibility that is implied in Redfern's analysis, namely, the signatures of psychological warfare in some alleged UFO crash-and-retrieval cases need to be examined and scrutinized carefully, to see if in fact the underlying psychology is more indicative of a human target, or some other kind of intelligence. Signatures of psychological operations at work in such stories thus do not necessarily mean or imply that there are no ETs.

We may expand on this philosophical approach to suggest something slightly different, namely, the hypothesis advanced by others seeking to interpret the UFO phenomenon that it originates not necessarily with "ETs" in the classic sense, but with "inter-dimensional" beings akin to angels or demons of classical religious tradition. Again, this would imply that psychological operations could be being conducted againstthem as well.

It seems to me that the bottom line is this: So long as the question of the origin of UFOs remains an open one(and it is), then by the same token, considerations of psychological operations with respect to UFOs must also grant the possibility that the targets of such operations might not be human at all. If Redfern's logic is true - that both sides during the Cold War might have resorted to such psychological operations in order to execute a classic poker bluff, that they had more technologies in their hand than was publicly known - then it stands to reason that if governments were faced with any off-planet threat, real or potential, then they would resort to such psychological operations from an even greater necessity than they would in the face of a potential human enemy during the Cold War. "ET" would literally have to be bluffed, if possible, that humanity had, or at least was in the process of developing, sophisticated technologies. After all, claiming to have a crashed and recovered UFO would be equally threatening to ETs as it was to Communist apparatchiks in Moscow.

There are further implications here, but those will have to wait until tomorrow...

See you on the flip side.