Classic Episode: January 3, 2010 — Independent Journalist Terry Hansen - The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
You've adored about. Powercast with your hosts Jade Steinberg David Vin.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
This episode of the Powercast is brought to you by
audible dot Com. Download a free audiobook of your choice
today at audible Podcasts dot com slash Powercast. That's Audible
podcast dot com slash Powercast.

Speaker 3 (00:36):
And now on with the.

Speaker 4 (00:38):
Show Terry on your website The Missing Times. The subtitle
is news media complicity in the UFO cover up. We're wondering,
how is it that you became involved in even looking
at this topic in what appears to be a fairly
scientific and objective method.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
Well, I grows out of my interests in my academic interests. Primarily,
I was arially a biology student at the University of
Minnesota back in the late sixties early seventies, and I
was very interested in everything related to the origin of
life and the search for extraterrestrial life and so on.
And it seemed to me that the UFO evidence was

(01:16):
certainly relevant to the search for non human intelligence. If
you had to go looking for a more advanced form
of intelligence, you'd have to look at things where which
sort of appeared magical or very mystifying. Because as Arthur C. Clark said,
any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So I
was curious about why there was a lot of resistance

(01:39):
among the scientific community to taking a serious look at
the UFO data. And some years later, after I got
a master's degree, or I was working on my master's
degree in journalism, I kind of revisited the UFO topic
and I wrote a few papers about it and about
the way it was covered or not covered in the newspapers,

(02:00):
And so the book kind of grew out of those
those two academic pursuits. I guess you could say.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
Now when you look at coverage of UFOs and the media,
are we looking to a conspiratorial reason why it's not
getting fair coverage or just because they don't take it seriously?

Speaker 3 (02:16):
Well, it's really a little of both. Actually, there are
people who are definitely trying to manage the news media.
If you go back to World War One and study
the relationship between the news organizations and the federal government,
there has been for almost one hundred years now a
working relationship between the media, particularly the Pentagon and the

(02:38):
military and the big news organizations to basically manage how
the American public seize world events. And in wartime the
objective is generally to get the public behind the war,
so they use censorship and propaganda to do that. Now,
the UFO topic is similar in the beginning in the

(03:00):
well probably beginning in World War Two, and then certainly
after World War Two. A lot of these UFO sightings
and flying saucer sightings were taking place near military installations,
near nuclear weapons development facilities such as Los Alamos, White Sands,
and so on. So it raised a lot of national
security issues, and there was quite a lot of concern

(03:23):
in the early fifties that the world was being invaded
from outer space. In fact, at one point President Eisenhower
actually made a statement Pope carried on the front page
of the New York Times denying that the world was
being invaded by flying sausage from outer space. So it
was a big deal at the time, and it's not
surprising that the Pentagon and the CIA would begin to

(03:46):
use their traditional censorship and propaganda tools to kind of
torque down on the subject and manage how the public
was perceiving it.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
I can understand that maybe in the fifties, maybe in
the forties during the Cold War. Right now we have
this polarized media where we have large corporations control the press.
We have the liberal media, the conservative media, whatever. And
I can't imagine Ram Emmanuel of the White House calling

(04:15):
Roger Ayles of Fox News and saying, hey, play down
the UFOs please, right, But I think what's happened.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
Let me quote a remark by a journalism professor named
William Dorman, who is a professor of journalism and vice
president of the Department of Journalism at California State University.
He wrote about the relationship between the media and the
government as it's evolved over time, and he said, what

(04:43):
has taken shape forty years after Hiroshima can best be
described as a journalism of deference to the national security state.
The free marketplace of ideas, if it ever existed, has
given way to an arena of limited popular discourse whose
parameters are set in the national has defined by official Washington.
So basically, what you're saying there is that the media institutions,

(05:07):
the big corporations have virtually become an arm of the government,
or put it another way, to the arm of the
government has become an arm of the media. I mean
they're both equally powerful. They've grown together, and this really
happened in a big way in World War Two. Because
World War Two was a total war effort, the media
just virtually abandoned any pretense of objective reporting and became

(05:31):
fully engaged with censoring the news and creating and disseminating propaganda.
This was a big operation and it employed most of
the leading journalists and corporate executives at the time. So
after World War Two was over, we entered the Cold
War and this state of mind where the media and
the government were working together to address whatever crises arose persisted,

(05:56):
and it just became institutionalized. I think we have a
situation today where the media very very rarely challenged the
government in any serious way over major issues, and I
think the events of nine to eleven are a good
example of that. There's the CBC here in Canada just
did a television documentary about the nine to eleven truth movement. Well,

(06:19):
you'd never see something like that in the US. It
just doesn't happen because if you're involved in something that
challenges the official story and that in such a profound way,
you're just basically persona on grata.

Speaker 4 (06:32):
Now, when you talk about the media's Harry obviously, if
you're looking at the evolution of this from let's say
the forties, in the work that you're doing, you're differentiating.
We would assume between you know, today, when people think
of the media, they primarily think of well, today today
they think of television and the internet. Of course, back
in the forties, what we're primarily talking about is the

(06:52):
print media and radio. And then you've got the rise
of you know, during the forties and the fifties the
movie screen as a new form of media. And we've
talked about this on the show recently. In fact, the
idea that certainly in the fifties, in most motion picture
portrayals of the UFO or alien topic, usually things were

(07:15):
drawn to an extreme where you know, you have basically
this very sort of a black and white kind of
they're here to invade the Earth, and you've got this
kind of hysteria worked up, which in the middle of
that comes the Day the Earth Stood Still in nineteen
fifty one, if I'm not wrong, which actually had a
decidedly different tone than the rest of the movies that

(07:39):
were coming out at the time. How did the mass media,
let's say, in the fifties affect the public perception of
this topic and how has that evolved over time. I mean,
if we go to the seventies, we have Close Encounters
of the Third Kind, and then the same Spielberg who
did that in the seventies, then, you know, twenty some

(08:00):
odd years later, does a different, a new rendition of
War of the Worlds. It's incredibly brutal in terms of
it being a very harsh, really kind of a wild
looking movie, but in sort of diametric opposition to what
he portrays in Close Encounters of a Third Kind. And
you have some number of people who look at this
topic saying, oh, gee, who's Spielberg on the take from now?

(08:22):
Not that we buy into that, I think, G and
I probably understand that Spielberg is a businessman and a
movie maker. You know, we don't necessarily think that he's
really tied into any kind of conspiracy situation regarding this.
But talk to us a little bit about the evolution
of media over the past let's say sixty years, and
how this topic has tracked in that timeframe.

Speaker 3 (08:42):
Okay, Well, there's a number of questions there that I
need to address. I guess one is that one point
I'd like to make is that my book focuses primarily
on what purports to be serious news coverage. In other words,
I don't deal very much with the entertainment industry. Is
a fact historically, though, that the entertainment industry has played

(09:03):
a big role in all government propaganda operations. Walt Disney
produced a lot of propaganda films during World War Two,
for example. But to get back to the media, or
what I call the news media, that's really the focus
of my book. If you look at UFO coverage in
kind of an objective or analytical way, what you see
is there's two views of reality that the news media

(09:26):
and the US portray, and one is the picture you
get from reading the small town newspapers that what people
you know at the grassroots are experiencing and reporting. Those
newspapers tend to be newspapers. Radio and TV tend to
be very factual and pretty much professional in the way
they report the UFO topic. But as you go up

(09:47):
the chain of hierarchy to the national level, the NBCs,
the CBS, is, the NPR, and so on, those publications seldom,
if ever, report on the UFO topic. And when they
do report on the UFOTO topic, it is in a
rather ridiculing tone.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
I'd want to interrupt you just one second, Terry. The
thing about local media, especially small stations, small radio stations,
also small newspapers tend to be owned by local companies,
small businesses, whereas the larger you get, the more they're
owned by these huge conglomerates.

Speaker 3 (10:22):
That's exactly right, And of course the trend has been
over the past forty some years to consolidate the control
of the big news organizations under five or six very
large corporations. And in some cases those corporations are heavily
involved in the weapons industry or the war industry, and

(10:43):
so they have a commercial interest in going along with
this propaganda approach to the media. They're trying to manipulate
the public win support for the Iraq war and so on.
So you know, they're less as you go down the
chine to the local local media, the grassroots media, they're

(11:03):
much less inclined to do that because they are distinct,
there are separate organizations, and they simply you know, they're
reporting on what local people are seeing and hearing and
so on. So you get these two pictures of reality,
what I call folk reality, which is the view of
what ordinary people experience and official reality, which is a

(11:25):
reflection of what official Washington wants people to think about things.
So that's what I found interesting in writing my book
is why should there be this rather remarkable divergence between
folk reality and official reality? And so to explain how
that came about, I actually spent a couple of chapters
reviewing the history of propaganda and censorship in the US.

(11:48):
A lot of people don't think the US government engages
in this sort of thing, and I think it's something
that you know, communist countries do or something like that.
But in fact, there's almost one hundred years of very
detailed history on this relationship between the government and the media,
the big media companies particularly, and how it's evolved over time.

(12:09):
So that's really important to understand the whole UFO topic
because the ufotopic does have national security implications and therefore, UH,
these organizations like the CIA and the Pentagon come into
play in determining how how the media portrays them. I'm
just going to get back to the news or the

(12:31):
movie business. That's that's kind of beyond the scope of
my book. But as I say, UH, movies have been
historically used as a propaganda tool, and you know, to
try to convince or try to persuade the public to
see things in a certain light or or from a
certain point of view. I find it interesting that what

(12:51):
I consider some of the better the two best films
entertainment films to deal with UFO topic, which are to
deal with extraterrestrial intelligence, I should say, are two thousand
and one Stanley Kubrick's film and Close Encounters. And in
both films you'll note that the evidence for alien contact
was hidden from the public. I remember in two thousand

(13:14):
and one, Heywood Floyd goes up to the Clebyis Moon base,
and you know, there's a cover story that there's a
some kind of plague going on and that's why the
Russians aren't allowed entry into the base and so on.
All that, of course, is to cover up the fact
that they've discovered physical contact for an advanced intelligence. And
in Close Encounters you see the same thing where they

(13:36):
use psychological warfare basically to hide the fact that there's
this rendezvous taking place at Devil's Tower. You know, they
drive everybody out with the story that there's a nerve gas.
I believe it is leaking from takes and so on.
So it's kind of interesting. I mean, I think those
two films are fairly sophisticated in the way they portray

(13:59):
the social reaction into extraterrestrial contact.

Speaker 5 (14:18):
You've entered another dimension, You've entered the para cast.

Speaker 2 (14:32):
We have Terry Hanson. He's author of a book called
The Missing Times news media complicity in the UFO cover up.
And of course, one of the logical questions we'd like
to ask the Power cast is, all right, maybe there
is censorship involved here, maybe the press is being brought
in lockstep to convey certain information. How do we prove it?

Speaker 3 (14:53):
Okay, well, that's a very good question. It is difficult
to prove censorship because it often takes place in a
very clandestine way. But there are some pretty good examples
that I can cite here. We all know, or at
least those who study the UFO topic, know about something
called the Robertson Panel. As you know probably know, the
CIA was created in nineteen forty seven with the National

(15:16):
Security Act, and one of the things that the CIA
was assigned to do was to create and disseminate propaganda.
That was a huge part of their budget. Not many
people know that, but if you go back and read
about the creation of the CIA in the Congressional Record
and spurses like that, propaganda was a big part of

(15:37):
the CIA's job from the pinning now. In nineteen fifty three,
in the wake of an intense wave of flying saucer
sightings across the US, the CIA organized something called the
Robertson Panel. It's named after a man named doctor H. P. Robertson,
who is a very well connected physicist and had been

(16:00):
a scientific intelligence officer during World War Two and had
been involved with monitoring UFO activity during the war years.
So he recommended that there be a kind of media
program of training and debunking, as they called it, And
basically what they wanted to do was eliminate UFO coverage
from the newspapers and the news media generally. Not short

(16:24):
or not long after that, there was a meeting between
Coral Lorenzen of APRO, an early UFO research civilian UFO
Research group, and Air Force Lieutenant Robert Olson of the
Air Technical Intelligence Command, and he told Coral Lorenzen, this
is June twelfth, nineteen fifty three quote. We're going to
try to keep these flying saucer stories out of the newspapers.

(16:47):
So the word had evidently gone out from the CIA's
Robertson Panel on out to the various branches of the
military that the name of the game was to try
to suppress coverage of the UFO topic as much as possible. Now,
let me give you another example. A lot of the
UFO reports in the nineteen fifty is, the really spectacular
reports came from commercial airline pilots. If you go back

(17:10):
and read the newspapers of that period, you'll find quite
a few of these. It was a big problem for
the government because they obviously had no explanation as to
what was going on, and they were quite concerned about
the public reaction to these stories. It was reported by
a military source in nineteen fifty four that airline pilots

(17:32):
were seeing or reporting five to ten flying saucers per night.
I think about that. That's an amazing number of reports
every every night of the year, and so it was
an astonishing situation, and that's one of the reasons why
I think Eisenhower tried to reassure the public by saying
that the world was not being invaded, because in fact,

(17:53):
it certainly looked like we were being invaded. Now what
do they do about this? Well, first of all, they
made flying saucers reports an intelligence matter under something called
Jane app one forty six Joint Army Navy Air Force
Publication one. And basically what they told the airline pilots was,

(18:13):
if you see a flying saucer, you have to report
it to the intelligence people, and at that point it
becomes a secret matter under the Espionage Act and you
can no longer talk about it to the media.

Speaker 2 (18:27):
This is something, by the way, that the lad Major
Donald Keiho often mentioned his books.

Speaker 3 (18:32):
Yeah, I'm sure he did. Now, there was actually a
reaction against this censorship by airline pilots, and it was
reported in a newspaper called a New Star Ledger for
December twenty second, nineteen fifty eight, as an article by
John Lester, And basically what Lester said was that there

(18:53):
were about two hundred and fifty airline pilots signed a
petition protesting the fact that the US military was trying
to suppress their sightings applying saucers, and it was later
signed by I think an additional two hundred or so.
I think the total number was eventually four hundred and
fifty pilots, but ultimately it came down to do you

(19:16):
want to keep your job or do you want to
keep quiet? And so you know, they decided most of
them decided to just go along with it because they
wanted to keep their job, they were well paid and
so on. So those pilot citing stories pretty much disappeared
from the newspapers after the mid nineteen fifties.

Speaker 2 (19:34):
Occasionally, well that wasn't that censorship, Terry though. It was
more of the government controlling the pilots through this directive,
but it still appeared in the Star Ledgers, so they
didn't censor that.

Speaker 4 (19:44):
Well, that's preemptive censorship, Geane. I mean you're not censoring
the information.

Speaker 2 (19:50):
You know, that censorship by the government, but not preemptive
censorship to stop the Star Ledger from publishing that information.

Speaker 3 (20:00):
Right, But the effect is really the same. I mean,
no matter how you censor information, if you're suppressing it somehow,
that is censorship. If you're taking measures to suppress information
from the media and from the general public, that is censorship,
you know. I mean the fact that the ultimate goal
or the ultimate effect is the same is.

Speaker 2 (20:21):
That regulation ja nap one, is that still an effect
today or is there some success or equivalent to it.

Speaker 3 (20:29):
Well, I think it is still in effect, I believe,
And you'll note that whenever a pilot on those rare occasions,
rare occasions where pilots do make a public UFO report,
they're usually they usually suffer for it career wise. So
I have to believe that there's still a variety of

(20:50):
methods that are being used to keep these stories out
of general circulation.

Speaker 4 (20:55):
Now, Terry, is this true for the entire world? Have
you focused specifically on the United States.

Speaker 3 (21:03):
I'm focusing specifically on the United States. No, it isn't true,
and that's another supporting bit of evidence that there is
censorship going on in the US. You probably know that
maybe a decade or so ago, there was a huge
flap of UFO activity in Mexico.

Speaker 4 (21:18):
Absolutely on Mexico City flap. We've talked about it quite
a bit on the show.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (21:22):
Okay, Well, that was a big story in Mexico. As
you probably know, there were many stories about the newspapers.
It was a big story on television. I actually know
a scientist who went to Mexico City and saw a
flying saucer and so these this was a big deal,
but yet the news virtually stopped at the US border.
How can you explain that if we have a free press.

(21:45):
I mean, you know, if Tiger Woods jets on his wife,
it's an instant story all across the country. But if
there's a massive wave of flying saucer activity right across
the US border and there's nothing on it in the media,
how do you account for that if there is some
mechanism in place now a lot of newspapers depend on
the wire services for information, and the New York Times

(22:08):
published an article a while back. Let's see if I
can find the exact day of the article. It's on
my website, but basically it said that March twenty four,
two thousand and one, New York Times published an article
saying that in the sixties, during the Bay of Pigs era,
the CIA had a working relationship with the AP and

(22:30):
UPI wire services that allowed them to put propaganda stories
directly on to the AP and UPI wires. So, you know,
if they have that kind of relationship, it's not so
difficult to imagine that they could also prevent a story
from moving on the wire. And this brings me to
another example. During the University of Colorado Conon Commission, which

(22:53):
was in the nineteen sixties. Nineteen sixty seven, there was
this ongoing or this quote unquote investigation carried out onto
the supervision of Condon, who was a physicist, and at
the time there were some peculiar things happening, and there
was a reporter named R. Roger Harkins who worked for

(23:14):
the Boulder Daily Camera, and he was covering the Condon
Commission and all the shenanigans that were happening, and he
was rather suspicious about the whole thing and suspected that
the CIA was kind of stage managing the whole operation.
So he thought, well, maybe we can do a test
to see whether this is actually happening. He did an
interview with Jim Lorenzen again of April, and Lorenzen purposely

(23:39):
gave a rationale why the CIA would have to be
interested in the UFO topic and so on. So Harkins
wrote this interview up. And now I remember he had
been requested to do this story by the AP office,
so he's just responding to a request. So he wrote
the story up. He filed the story with the AP
and he went back to his office to see whether

(23:59):
the story would go back, you know, would go out
over the wire, and of course the story was designed
to implicate the CIA in the UFO cover up. Well,
lo and behold, the story never appeared. So Harkins take
on that was, well, somebody in the ap AP Wire
Service office is intercepting these stories that they you know,
the kind of stories that they don't want going out.

(24:21):
And I think that's that's got to be going on, because,
you know, like the major story that I addressed in
my book was the UFO overflights over the missile silos
in Montana nineteen seventy five. This story was very well
known throughout the West. There were many many articles about
this in the in the newspapers in Montana all across

(24:43):
the state, so it wasn't a big secret. Now, how
can you explain that, or how can you account for
the fact that even though this was a big story
with tremendous implications, the story virtually stopped in Montana, did
not travel out over the wire, over stringers, through you know,
other me conduits that normally would be in place. Very

(25:04):
hard to explain that.

Speaker 4 (25:05):
Well, it almost sounds like it's one of those situations
where because it involves nuclear issues. We know that in
covering this specific topic on the show before, when we've
had Nick Pope on, he'll talk freely until you hit
the term nuclear and then he basically freezes up. He says,

(25:25):
I can't go anywhere near that. And so it seems like, certainly,
you know, after the fact, we found out about the
Malmstroam case in nineteen sixty seven, and actually on the
para cast we broke another story from someone who had
been involved in an episode at Moulndstrom in nineteen sixty six,
a year before the sixty seven episode where their witness

(25:48):
the craft come in over an empty silo. It seems like,
you know, when you talk about the nuclear issue, it's
kind of like what happened during the First Gulf War.
I'll never forget. Norman Schwarzkov is doing is doing a
press conference and somebody asks them about the nuclear submarines
off the coast of Iraq, and he says, submarines. We

(26:10):
don't talk about submarines, and that was it. He just
like stopped it right there. So does maybe in terms
of these Stilo flyovers, do you think that the nuclear
issue has anything to.

Speaker 1 (26:20):
Do with that?

Speaker 3 (26:21):
Yeah, Well, I agree, And actually, since I wrote my book,
there's another book that's come out. I'm sure you know
about Robert Hastings book, UFOs and Nukes.

Speaker 4 (26:31):
Absolutely, it's good Friend of the Ship.

Speaker 3 (26:33):
Yeah, yeah, I mean it's a very detailed and well
documented account of the many encounters between UFOs and nuclear
weapons related facilities of one kind or another. So I
don't think there's any question that this has been going
on for quite a long time, and it's not something
that the military would want the public to know about.
And so they have a rationale for keeping that information

(26:56):
out of general circulation to the extent that they're able,
and they start have the means to do so, because
that's largely what the CIA does. I mean, if you
look at their budget, people who are experts on this
say that the CI spends hundreds of millions of dollars.
There's not billions of dollars on censorship and propaganda of
various kinds. When there really are a broad range of

(27:19):
ways of keeping information out of circulation that don't require
something like the War Powers Act that we had in
World War Two, and I list those in my book.
There's one method is what's called censorship at source, which
is where you simply order military personnel not to talk.
And that's there's many, many, many documented examples of that

(27:40):
down through the years. There are high level contacts with
publishers and media owners. You can call people up and
either conjole them or threaten them into not publishing. You
can recruit journalists or media executives. You can monitor intercept
news reports on the wire services. I talked about that

(28:00):
there's lifetime secrecy agreements that people sign when they're involved
in very classified work, and that keeps information out of circulation.
It's known that UFO organizations have been spied upon by
the National security people. That's what the Robertson panel recommended.
By the way, there's been instances of after confiscation of evidence, sabotage,

(28:24):
character assassination, harassment, incarceration, and possibly assassination.

Speaker 6 (28:30):
Oh, I'm gonna have to ask you about that. In
a second, you've entered in another dimension.

Speaker 5 (28:48):
You've entered.

Speaker 2 (29:13):
We have Terry Hanson, author of the Missing Times, and
we're exploring the UFO cover up, and you mentioned assassination.
But I just wanted to focus on one of the
thing before we go into that possibility or that frightening prospect.
We had a UFO abductee on our previous show named Doug,
and he mentioned a pretty elaborate UFO sighting where they

(29:35):
took photographs. And this is in the days they had
actual role film and that role of film disappeared and
no one found it.

Speaker 4 (29:43):
You brought it to the developing lab. The role was history,
right right.

Speaker 3 (29:48):
Well. I once saw a lecture by doctor j Allen
Hayek and he went on for approximately half an hour
with photograph after photograph after photograph, flying sponsors and various
anomalous objects that he had collected over his years researching
the topic. This was in the days before photoshop and

(30:09):
digital photography and all that. You know, these number of
these photographs have been carefully analyzed and they've stood up
very well. But you don't hear about that, do you.
I mean, you know, if you see a program on
the media, they always try to stress the fact that
there's no evidence, there's no physical evidence. Well it's not
true as well, Yeah, that's not true.

Speaker 4 (30:28):
And certainly in terms of photographic evidence, probably the best
photographic evidence we have comes from the era prior to
digital manipulation tools. The mcmonville photos being you know, obvious example,
the trendade photos from Brazil another great example. I mean,
there are some very compelling pieces of evidence to support
the idea that there is something anomalous. But Terry you

(30:50):
mentioned before something about potentially people being killed in this process.
That's obviously fairly controversial statement.

Speaker 3 (31:00):
Well it is, and I don't I don't know whether
it is. It's very difficult to prove why someone dies.
For example, the death of James Forrestall is a very
controversial topic because many people at the time believe that
he was he didn't just jump out of the window

(31:20):
of the hospital room that he was being kept in,
that he may have been pushed or killed in some fashion.
Ed Ruppelt, who was Project blue Book director, wrote some
very revealing or a very revealing book about the UFO
topic in the fifties, died at a very young age.
I think he was thirty nine and he had a
heart attack. Now could you say that was a murder? Well, no,

(31:43):
probably not. There's not enough evidence there. But we do
know from the Roswell example that a lot of the
witnesses were told in no uncertain terms, if you talk
about this, not only will we kill you we'll kill
your family. And this has been written up and witness
to Roswell by Thomas Carey and.

Speaker 2 (32:00):
Sid So now back to Rupel for a second. You
know that there was a second edition of the report
Identified Flying Objects where he added a couple of chapters
basically recanting the impression that he believed in UFOs. And
according to Major Donald Keijo, who actually wrote some of
this up in one of his books, Rupel was being

(32:20):
very very deeply pressured.

Speaker 3 (32:22):
I wouldn't be surprised at that. Yeah, I mean, we
do know that the people have frequently been threatened or
you know, various threatening remarks have been made to UFO
witnesses over the years, all variety of witnesses from the
military to civilians. So have those threats been carried out?
Very hard to prove that, you know, but it's a possibility,

(32:44):
and we certainly know that people die under mysterious circumstances.
You probably know about the case of David Kelly in Britain.
He was a scientist who was causing problems for the
administration there over evidence for weapons of mass destruction and
various other things. Yes, and he died in very very
unusual circumstances. That's being a challenge now and written by

(33:06):
a number of other physicians who say that he was
you know, he didn't die of suicide. So these things happen.
You have to be realistic about it. If they're serious
about keeping information out of circulation, they won't stop it anything.

Speaker 4 (33:19):
Well, Terry, this begs a question, and I'm sure everybody
who's listening to this right now probably has on their minds.
I mean, what do you think is being withhell to
the extent where people's lives would be on the line.
I mean, if if let's let's say we go back
to Roswell and we go back to the idea that
people who were supposedly witnesses to certain aspects of what

(33:41):
was going on after the fact, we're told by the
military if you say anything will kill you, what would
what do you think would motivate the military to make
those kinds of threats. I mean, because when you talked
about you know, CIA and disinformation intersection with this whole topic,
I mean, we have to kind of that point. You
sort of have to differentiate between the idea of using

(34:04):
the UFO topic as a cover to let's say, play
around with disinformation techniques and see how they work versus
an actual cover up of some sort of information that's
being held kept secret. What do you think would be
the nature of such information that people's lives would be threatened?

Speaker 3 (34:21):
Well, I think it probably comes back to the general
desire of various powerful people and institutions to maintain the
status quo. I personally believe that Roswell was an alien craft.
I mean, that's where I come down on that. I
think the evidence is very strong if that was the case.
So if you think about this for a minute, from

(34:41):
the standpoint of say, the military industrial complex, how valuable
would it be to have an alien artifact that might
be thousands of years in advance of our own technology
that would completely upset the balance of power and back
in the nineteen fifties particularly, you know, if your paranoid
about the Russians overtaking us or something like that, this

(35:03):
would be a tremendous importance. So that alone, I think
would be one reason why the military would want to
take control of that technology. Another aspect of it is
just from the economic or commercial point of view. If
you had technology that was quite far in advance of
anything else on earth, you would be in a position
basically to dictate, for hundreds of years into the future,

(35:25):
the direction of technological evolution, and you'd also be able
to capitalize on that to the tune of untold hundreds
of billions of dollars in profits. There are a lot
of rumors, and I think this witness to Roswell. They
talked about this, the inkonell or the memory metal. You
remember that, right, Sure, there's evidence that our research into

(35:48):
the use of tongue of titanium as an aerospace material
had its roots in the Roswell crash. A very interesting
idea and seems reasonably well supported. So who knows what
other things might have come out of Roswell. Courso claimed,
and I know a lot of people are very skeptical,
of course, but he claimed that the Roswell wreckage had

(36:10):
an impact on the development of fiber optics and transistors
and other things. There's another source that made a similar statement.
That was Robert Starbacher, and he said that, you know,
I'm sure our people looked at these things very closely,
and so there was there there clearly was a very deep,
highly classified research and development program that grew out of

(36:31):
the Roswell Crash and probably other crashes that have taken
place to exploit these technologies, both for the military as
well as for private commercial interests. Now, you know, that's
not something that you just want to have out there
in the open, in the open domain, because that our
enemies or rival companies and so on would have that

(36:51):
information too, So it'd be important for them to sequester
that information so that they could use it to their
own advantage. Now, there may be other concerns as well,
ecological impact of extraterrestrial contact. That was you know, that
was the central feature of the movie two thousand and
one that I mentioned earlier. There was the topic of

(37:12):
a Battell memorial report which claimed that, you know, our
civilization could collapse extraterrestrial and advanced society became publicly known
to the American public or the world public. So there
are lots of different concerns like that, and there may
be others that we don't even know about.

Speaker 4 (37:30):
Well, when we talk about recovered technology. When you bring
this up, and we've spoken about this topic, quate bit
on the power cast, leaving the veracity of courso out
of the picture for a minute, because the whole question
about course brings up problems with Bill Burns, who co
wrote the book with him, and sure there's a whole
series of problems that arise out of that. But putting

(37:52):
all that aside for a moment, the history of development
of technology is something that's somewhat well known, and when
you look at the development of things like transistors or
fiber optics or night vision, it's a fairly well documented
research and development effort that it sort of seems to

(38:13):
preclude the instant sort of a jump that you would
get if you all of a sudden came into the
possession of a technology that was very far in advance
of anything we have. And the second part of that
problem that Gene and I have talked about quite a
bit on the show, because both of our backgrounds are
in covering technology and technology journalism, and I've dubbed myself

(38:36):
a technologist, which has freaked some people out, but that's
what I am. I'm really all my life, I've just
been involved in technology of various types. You end up
with this conundrum where if let's say you get a
hold of a chunk of technology that's thousands of years
in advance or tens of thousands of a years of

(38:57):
years of advance of what we have. Question becomes, would
we even be able to figure out how to decipher
what we were looking at?

Speaker 3 (39:04):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (39:04):
Absolutely, And we've played this game on the show many
times with the description of you take a laptop computer
back one hundred years, handed to the most brilliant scientists
to say, here, figure this out. Sure be interesting to
watch it, you know, just even see them try to
figure out the power supply you met.

Speaker 3 (39:23):
Well, absolutely, you know, I've got one of these little
iPod touches. You can hold it in the palm of
your hand and acids the world's knowledge, you know, I mean,
it's just amazing.

Speaker 4 (39:33):
Just the part of it that's been digitized, which is
not the majority of the right college. Just let's just
draw that line at sand very important, all right, please
go ahead.

Speaker 3 (39:42):
But my point is though that I mean, I'm also
very interested in technology. I was an AM radio operator
back in the sixties and at that time, you know,
radios were vacuum two machines, they were crystal control to
oscillators and things like that. Very primitive. Now look what
we've got, I mean, we've gone from that to the
iPod touch in basically fifty years or so. So that's

(40:07):
a tremendous leap of technology. Now did it all come
because of our own efforts or did we get a
few hints about which direction to investigate from the Roswell wreckage.
I think it's rather difficult to say, because you know,
they may have done it in a very sophisticated, clever
way where they just sort of decided, well, we'll fund

(40:28):
this area of research because that's that looks like something
we need to understand in regard to the Roswell wreckage,
or we'll fund that area of research. They're not going to,
you know, make it. They're not going to do it
in such a way that you can trace it back
to the Roswell wreckage. But that Roswell wreckage might well
have provided some directions in which, you know, which areas

(40:48):
to do research. So we can't really say for sure.
I don't think whether there has been any impact, and
we may have already been witnessing some benefits from the
Roswell wreckage that have come about in rather labyrinthine ways.

Speaker 5 (41:16):
You're in the paracast with Geen Steinberg and David Biedne.
You never know what's going to happen.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
Next before we go on, we have Terry Henson, author
of a book called The Missing Times. But let's look
at your side of the fence here, and that is
all right. David and I look at the possibilities of
having this reverse engineer technology, and we say, well, there's
a clear history of how integrated circuits were developed, night goggles,

(41:46):
et cetera, the stuff that is talked about in the
day after Roswell.

Speaker 4 (41:49):
Sure, but then let's look at the conspiracy theory.

Speaker 2 (41:52):
What if the historical records of the development of those technologies,
what if those things were altered to change the history
so that we'd look to be conventional developments, Because if
we're looking at forty years later, how do we know.

Speaker 3 (42:07):
Well, sure, that's exactly right. And there's another aspect of this,
and that is the legal aspect. If you're a big corporation,
you claim to have invented something, let's see, it actually
came from the Roswell wreckage, but you were given a
contract by the Pentagon to develop this into something practical.
Now you can claim ownership of that technology through the

(42:29):
patent and trademark process, as long as nobody knows where
it came from it looks like an original investment. So
there's a strong incentive there to create a paper trail
that makes it look like you invented it or you
did the research, whereas in fact, maybe that research wasn't
done here, maybe it was given to us, or maybe
we got a hold of it in some other way.

(42:50):
So I think it's a little difficult to be sure
about that. I mean, I'm just I can't prove it,
but I think you have to keep an open mind
about where some of these things come from. I think
possibly there are many many other secrets waiting in the
wings that are so revolutionary and so disruptive that they
just can't let them out even today. And I'm thinking

(43:13):
of a comment that George Knapp heard from someone who
worked at AARREA fifty one. He said, you know, we've
discovered something that if it were let out, it would
change everything. So think about that.

Speaker 4 (43:27):
Yeah, that's that's bob Blazaar.

Speaker 3 (43:30):
And so not just not just Bob Blazar. That has
come from other sources. According to George Knapp, he has
He's heard that from other people. So you know, they're
obviously working on something there that they don't want the
public to know. About. I mean, I've been out therea
fifty one, not in the base, but you know, they're
pretty serious about keeping people away from whatever they're working

(43:50):
on there. It's conceivable that they are actually sitting on things.
And a number of the people from Lockheed's skunk works
have said as much, or in it as much, that
they have technologies that are very far in advance of
what's known to the public. My own brother, by the way,
worked for Brett and Whitney Aircraft, and he's told me
that he knows things that about jet engines and so

(44:13):
on that he can't talk about that the public doesn't
know about, and if they were made public, they would change,
they would have a significant impact on air transportation. But
they're they're not ready to let those out of the
bag yet.

Speaker 4 (44:27):
Well, not to run that one down, then, but jet
engines a technology that seems pretty well understood. We see
it in action all the time. It was your brother
implying that there is some version of a jet engine
that is unknown to us that has characteristics that would

(44:48):
shock us. Is that the import It might not.

Speaker 3 (44:50):
Shock you, but it would it would certainly change, It
would change air travel. I think let's let's put it
that way. You know, he worked on engines that were
you know, multi mock engines, Mark seven, Mock eight, very
high speed engine. So they have technology that's pretty far
in advance, and they don't just they don't want the
civilian sector to have it, because if the civilian sector

(45:12):
had it, and other militaries would have it necessarily primarily
why it's kept classifying. But you know, as I'm sure
you're aware of quotes from ben ben Midrich, ben Rich
and people like that. And I've talked to people who
knew ben Rich and they say the same thing that
ben Rich told them, that they have things that are

(45:35):
fifty years beyond anything you can even imagine. And the
guy that I talked to you about this said that
I have a pretty good imagination. So are they just
blowing smoke? I don't know this.

Speaker 4 (45:47):
There's an interesting example of all of this in the
computer industry many and where we've got a situation where
in ship development we've definitely hit a bit of a wall.
You know, we used to see these tremendous increases in
CPU processors processor speed, and about five years ago, those

(46:09):
tremendous increases essentially just stopped. And what we saw was
a transition to multi core processors, where basically it was like,
we can't make the individual processor faster, we can just load.
We can miniaturize them so we have more of them
to draw on in a multiprocessor environment, assuming the software
behaves properly. But I can share this with our audience

(46:31):
and with you just as an insight to that. Many
many years ago, there was an extended family member of
mine who was in the military who knew of my
interest in computer technology. And this is the lifelong thing
I've had. And this person said to me, said something

(46:53):
to me that has stayed with me forever. I've actually
written a bunch on this topic, and I know that
there's and I'll just say what the words are. Holographic
memory core. This person said to me, Look, there are
computing technologies that go beyond what you know to be
you know, the standard von Neumann architecture computer. There's the
concept of a holographic memory COREP And I'm like, what

(47:15):
the hell is that? He said, Imagine a computer where
there's no differentiation between processor and memory, that they're one
and the same, and where basically you don't have bus
limitations bus limitations are essentially gone.

Speaker 3 (47:28):
Now.

Speaker 4 (47:29):
This is I was told this. I want to tell you,
this is like twenty years ago, maybe even longer ago
than twenty, but it was about about twenty twenty five
years ago. I was told this, and it kind of
rocked my brain. I was like, what. And if one
extrapolates from that, then one has to believe. If I
was told that twenty twenty five years ago, and the

(47:50):
way he was representing it was this was a technology
they were kind of working on but didn't have quite
have there yet, if we extrapolate from that and think that, now, okay,
maybe there is a fully optical computer somewhere in a
bunker underground that has processing power that we can't even imagine.

(48:10):
Let's just assume for a moment that was a true statement.
One would then perhaps legitimately ask the question, well, we
have technology like that, then why is it sitting underground somewhere?
Why isn't it being deployed? If we have let's say,
craft that have amazing abilities, how come they haven't been deployed?

Speaker 3 (48:32):
You know?

Speaker 4 (48:33):
And right, I mean, how come we haven't seen any
of this?

Speaker 3 (48:37):
Well? I think one answer to that is that there's
something called the Invention Secrecy Act of nineteen fifty one.
Are you familiar with that? Well, barticularly what that is.
There is a law, it's called the Invention Secrecy Act
in nineteen fifty one. If you apply for a patent,
it has to go through a patent review and it
has to be examined by representatives from the DoD, from NASA,

(48:59):
and from the Department of Energy, and if in their judgment,
what you have invented has national security implications depending on
how they define that, they never tell you. Of course,
they can basically confiscate your idea, and that has been
exercised many, many, many times over the years. So people
have invented things that, in the judgment of these faceless

(49:20):
government bureaucrats has some national security implication and they just
basically take your idea.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
Any example specifically or where this may be or is
it basically saying well, we don't know because it's a secret.

Speaker 3 (49:35):
They don't tell you why they do it. They just
say it's a national security problem. Therefore, you know, we're
not going to grant you a patent, or you're confiscating
your idea. I don't know exactly how it works, but
there is a law like that. I read an article
about this in a Federation of American Scientists article, or
I think at any rate there is a law like that.

(49:58):
You can look it up and talk to a a
patent attorney. They would probably know all about it.

Speaker 4 (50:02):
Well, so basically, then the picture you're drawing here, Terry,
is that our free society is in no way free.

Speaker 3 (50:10):
Basically, well, it's becoming less and less free over time,
I'd say, you know, I mean, after World War Two,
science began to be viewed in a very different light
by politicians and policymakers. The atomic bomb demonstrated that science
was capable of delivering some rather terrifying technologies, and I

(50:34):
think at that point things began to change. A lot
of new laws were created to ensure that certain kinds
of ideas, certain kinds of technologies would be kept under
wraps for as long as they wanted to do that.
There's a very good book called Secret Science Federal Control
of American Science and Technology. I recommend that as a
real good overview of how this all evolved over the

(50:56):
past fifty years. Because no, we don't live in a
free society anymore. We live in a very tightly controlled society,
not only in terms of the media, which is what
I focus on in my book, but also in terms
of science and technology. There are a lot of you know,
the most science and technology research is carried out by
the Pentagon, and the Pentagon has a very different agenda

(51:18):
from you know, the private sector, the commercial sector. No,
I think freedom has been torqued down on quite a
bit over the past few decades.

Speaker 2 (51:27):
Is it mostly because of the UFO phenomenon or are
there other things, other areas where we're seeing this happen.

Speaker 3 (51:34):
Well, I think the I think it's it's traceable back
to the UFO phenomenon to a large degree. It's also
part of the atomic the nuclear weapons problem that developed,
you know, with nuclear proliferation and things like that. But
of course the UFOs are tied in with the atomic
development as well. There's an obvious kind of interrelationship between

(51:56):
UFOs and nuclear nuclear energy, and you know, you only
need to read Robert Hastings book to see just how
clear that is. So I think there are all kinds
of ramifications that kind of spin out from there. For
you know, for example, I mean there's a lot of
evidence that the Air Force was trying to shoot down

(52:16):
flying saucers in the nineteen fifties. Maybe Roswell didn't crash,
maybe it was shot down, who knows, I don't know.
So that's a whole other can of worms. I mean,
then you know, you've got the government that's you know,
laterally declaring war on other technological civilizations in space. I mean,
that's without telling the public about it. You know, shouldn't

(52:37):
there be some discussion about this. That's a pretty incredible thing.

Speaker 4 (52:41):
No, it also seems like an incredible act of futility.
Well exactly, because yeah, how do you fight something that
can out maneuver anything we have?

Speaker 3 (52:52):
Well exactly, I mean why, I mean you have to
wonder at the intelligence of some of these military generals
that they would they would just to undertake something like
that without considering the consequences of what they're doing.

Speaker 4 (53:05):
Well, at that point, there aren't they just I mean,
there's an old saying that the best general is not
the general that makes the right decision. The best generals
the general that makes a decision under pressure, any decision
that keeps things moving forward. So you know, if you
look at the situation, for example, what was going on,
let's say in the late forties early fifties, where we

(53:25):
come off the Second World War and all of the
implications of that on a global scale. Now, all of
a sudden, there are these things that are in the
sky that outmaneuver anything that we have. I mean, at
that point, certainly one can assume that the Air Force
was basically just playing the role of protector of the
skies and we're enforcing to the extent that they thought

(53:47):
they could restrictions over our airspace, where maybe ultimately they
figured that, no, we can't outfly these things. So you know,
at that point, do you then think that there was
a decision to sort of kind of take sort of
of a poll ar attitude towards this, Well, if we can't,
if we can't shoot these things down, we'll just make
believe they don't exist.

Speaker 3 (54:08):
Yeah, well it seems psychotic, that seems to be what
they've what they've done. But you know, once you commit
yourself to a deception on that scale, you lay the
groundwork for this destruction of your own your own government,
because it just chips away at the at the confidence
people have in duly constituted authority. When people know you're

(54:31):
being lied to and the area fifty one is a
great example about that. I wrote a paper or an
article called the Psychology of Dreamland, just reflecting on this
idea that the you know, the military is lying about
the existence of a base that everyone knows about, and
yet they go on lying about it. They go on
pretending as if it's not there, and everyone can go

(54:51):
out and see it and photograph it, and you can
see it on Google Earth. It's just it's absurd. You know,
you wonder who's in charge out there. I mean, the
these people seem to have an IQ of about fifty.
You know, they're just responding in some sort of mindless
bureaucratic way without thinking through what they're doing. I mean,
I wonder whether there's anybody in charge in the United States.

(55:14):
There's so much compartmentalization. Just to give you an example,
one of the people who read my book was a
very high level nuclear policy analyst for the Rand Corporation,
and he was in charge of formulating the US policy
about nuclear weapons, you know, the so called mutual assured
destruction doctrine. And he did not know at the time

(55:38):
that these UFO overflights were taking place, that that was happening.
The Air Force did not see fit to convey that
information to the very top level people making nuclear policy.
I find that astonishing, you know, I mean, you know,
I mean compartmentalization is being carried to such an extreme
that it's insane.

Speaker 4 (55:59):
No, actually, I think you've just created the definition of unbelievable.

Speaker 3 (56:04):
Yeah, it is. I was astonished to hear that, or.

Speaker 2 (56:07):
Need to know taken to the nth degree and taken
to the totally irrational.

Speaker 3 (56:13):
Well exactly. I mean if these guys didn't have a
need to know, who does you know? So I really
have to question whether this whole mania for secrecy and
compartment compartmentalization hasn't gotten completely out of control to the
point where it's become counterproductive. It's threatening. It may be
threatening our own existence, you know, as a nation, and
as I say, it corrodes people's confidence in government. When

(56:37):
when you know you're being lied to and yet they
go online.

Speaker 2 (56:40):
Is there any confidence in government at all? I don't
think we believe anything the government says. Well, if you
look at the way the mainstream media discusses the subject,
at least those areas that they do cover, no one
believes it. We're talking to Terry Hanson, The book is
called The Missing Times, and he has a website, the
Missing Times dot com. It's linked at the paracast dot com.

(57:01):
So if you forget that, you go to us. We
also have a link for the book so you can
get more information on it. We will rejoin Terry Hanson
and discuss the UFO cover up on the other side
of the power cast, I repeating We're.

Speaker 3 (57:14):
Not in Kansas anymore.

Speaker 5 (57:22):
You've entered another dimension. You've entered the para cast.

Speaker 2 (57:36):
Terry Hanson, author of The Missing Times. The site is
the Missing Times dot com. And something occurs to me here.
We look at the news media today and Edward Armurrow
would have been spinning in his grave to think what
has happened to the news media, although maybe he was
complicit in some things too, who knows. But now you
have this playing stories for entertainment, and you have of

(58:01):
course Cable News network twenty four hour cable News, where
they have commentators who are not presenting the news but
presenting entertainment.

Speaker 4 (58:10):
And of course we can say maybe Fox News.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
Is a big offender of that, but then MSNBC, for
its own particular point of view, might be doing the
same thing. The question being here when they present the
news as entertainment as the WWF, are they serving the
government in some way doing that so we don't take
the government and what it does seriously, so things can

(58:33):
go in under the radar and we don't see it.

Speaker 3 (58:35):
Well, yeah, they probably are. I mean I don't think that.
You know, all the polls, public opinion polls show that
the credibility is a very serious problem with the traditional media,
the newspapers and television networks and so on. They're down
to I think, I don't know, twenty or thirty percent
of the public thinks what they get over traditional media

(58:59):
is credible. So they're sort of being they're sort of
dying out in a way. I mean, I think there's
something new emerging out of the Internet, and the old
media are dying off like the dinosaurs, and you know,
the old parable of the dinosaurs and the mammals. The
question is how old the mammals evolve from here? Will
they evolve into something better than what we had or worse?

(59:22):
And I personally think one of the central problems of
the news business is that there's no there's no good
source of funding for serious investigative journalism right now. There
are some some organizations trying to address this, but they're
fairly small and ineffective. I have often thought that there

(59:44):
should be something like, you know, I call it the
Journalism Conservancy, where you sort of join this organization and
you pay your dues and in return you get you know,
you fund people who are doing investigative work. But of
course you still run into the problem of propaganda and
corruption and all those sorts of things that we've seen happen.

(01:00:06):
But somehow we have to come up with another model
for funding the news other than just advertising, because I
think that has gradually corrupted the whole process.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
Well, basically, printed press is almost dead. I mean, my
son is a journalism graduate. He graduated in May of
two thousand and eight. He had done some legitimate work
with legitimate news organizations who work for Gennett at the
hour Zona Republic, but there's no hope. They'd never get
a full time job there because they cut back. And
this is the way it is. People who want to

(01:00:37):
be old fashioned journalists there are no jobs to them.
But even the broadcast media they cut back in their
news bureaus around the world. So those who really want
to do this, where do.

Speaker 3 (01:00:48):
You go Yep. It's a very very serious problem, There's
no doubt about it. I think it's something that we're
all going to have to give serious thought to if
we want to continue living in a democratic society, because
you cannot have a functioning democratic republic if you don't
have reliable, trustworthy information about what's going on. Now.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
We can't, however, separate or divorce the United States from
the rest of the world.

Speaker 4 (01:01:14):
So obviously in your book you focused on what's happening.

Speaker 2 (01:01:17):
Here, but certainly since there is certainly so much coverage
of what goes on elsewhere, what about the rest of
the world. Do we have the government of the UK,
for example, since they are such close friends of the US,
doing the same thing. We know some information is being released,
but you know there's a lot of stuff that, for example,
Nick Pope will not talk about, especially when he goes
nuclear right.

Speaker 3 (01:01:38):
Well, you know, in fact, the UK, the British Empire
was the foremost practitioner of propaganda up until the United
States took over his role. They really taught the US
military establishment everything they know about propaganda and censorship. If

(01:02:00):
you go back and look at the history of World
War Two, the US had a relatively unsophisticated and rather
primitive intelligence apparatus up until World War Two, and because
of the US joining forces with the British government, a
lot of knowledge about this was transferred to the British
or to the American intelligence community from Britain. And in

(01:02:24):
a sense, I think we're all kind of one big
empire right now. I call it the Anglo American Empire,
because there's a lot of cooperation between all the leading
English speaking countries, particularly Canada, US, Britain and the Australia
New Zealand.

Speaker 4 (01:02:40):
Well, it seems like we're dealing in a world that
is reminiscent of the infamous scene in the movie Network
where Ned Baty takes Peter Finch into Valhalla and explains
to him the corporate cosmology as at Patty Chaisky calls it,
where he tells Howard Beale it's not a world of nations,

(01:03:02):
and it's basically the world's of business of multinational corporations.
And it's the old line of follow the money, basically.
And there's some people who would you know, now, might
might yell at me and say, well, that's a conspiracy theory,
And the answer is, well, no, it's not a conspiracy theory.
It's a recognition of reality, you know, I mean, anybody

(01:03:24):
who wants to understand that. Look at the healthcare crisis
in the United States today, and as we're recording this show,
because this show is going to air, you know, in
a few weeks, as we're recording this, basically the insurance
companies are effectively overriding anything involving the democratic process. They're

(01:03:45):
just basically trampling right over it. And so ultimately, what
you have, really and genus is, I'm kind of like
addressing what you were asking before. What you've got is
a world where you have these multinational corporations who and
to be the media owners no matter where you go.
You know, it's it's it's one small set of companies

(01:04:06):
that own a majority of the mass media around the
globe because of the interconnected aspects of communications technology today,
and and so you've got a problem where you're trying
to fight the money. And I think that if one
does a historical analysis of any part of human history

(01:04:26):
trying to fight the money, the money always wins.

Speaker 3 (01:04:29):
Sadly, Yeah, that's that's quite often the case. I'm afraid
to afraid to acknowledge I'm not happy about that, Terry, No, no,
not at all. I think I do generally see the
Internet as a positive thing and that it gives it
gives the average person, the average Joe basically his own platform,

(01:04:53):
and you know, you can get things, if you can
get information out about important developments, if you work at
it and use the proper methods, you know you can.
I've published articles on various blogs and things like that
that probably would never have gotten into into the newspapers
because of the nature of the topic. They just wouldn't

(01:05:13):
wouldn't write about that. So I see it as a
positive development. But we shouldn't be too complacent about the
situation because there have been some some articles and papers
I've written from people in the Pentagon basically saying that
we need to start using the Internet in the same

(01:05:34):
way we've been using the mainstream media. I cited an
example that in my book. So you know, you have
things like Wikipedia, for example, that anybody can edit. That
sounds okay until you realize that some of the people
doing the writing and editing might be working for the
you know, the CIA, or some other organization like that.

Speaker 4 (01:05:52):
Well, it's back to the money, you know. It comes
back to who's got the lawyers sure, who can make the.

Speaker 3 (01:05:59):
Biggest noise and make the biggest splash.

Speaker 4 (01:06:01):
Well, or who can bring the biggest threat to bear.
I mean when you've got a an organization like Scientology
that is basically using their financial might to go in
and to mess around with people, and there's been a
tremendous outcry over what they've been doing in terms of
even the Wikipedia page about them, how they go in

(01:06:23):
and they edit this. This is where you have the
all of the basically it's democracy and action with all
of the pratfalls that you're likely to run into. Where
the Internet, everybody can have a voice on the Internet.
That's the good part. The bad part everybody can have
a voice on the Internet. So you have this situation
and this gets really complicated, guys when you start to

(01:06:46):
look at again we come back to money. You start
to look at, for example, Google ad words and the
whole thing about trying to drive traffic to your site.
Where we went old site a very specific example here
in the context of the topic we're talking about right now,

(01:07:06):
the UFO topic, where you have this website put up
by an Australian self proclaimed psychic by name of Michael
Cohen all news Web and here we're saying it on
here Farracast listeners know about the site because of the
fact that for us, it's like, if it shows up there,
it's probably crap. But as it turns out, what appears

(01:07:32):
to be the case is that people like Cohen appear
to be basically setting up a situation where they're generating
click through dollars. They're basically creating headlines that are completely outraged,
as are just ridiculous, but that drives a large amount
of traffic to their site that basically lets them correct

(01:07:55):
collect revenues from the large amount of clickthroughs that are
happening on their site. So they keep putting up more
and more outrageous stuff, basically just looking to get the eyeballs.

Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
That's it.

Speaker 4 (01:08:05):
You're not really interested in the nature of the content
itself or the veracity of it. It's just basically put
up the sensationalistic site drive lots of people their profit repeat. Well,
it's the same model that works with cable news. Right
in twenty four hour cable news. They're not there to

(01:08:26):
give you the news, they are there to generate ratings
and because they have ratings, they get more advertising. They
charge each advertiser more dollars. I didn't care if it's
anything true or not true about the information they present,
you know, relative.

Speaker 3 (01:08:40):
That's probably relatively innocuous as these things go. I mean,
you can also have situations where you know, some new
internet phenomenon comes out of nowhere, and who's really behind it,
and what's their true objective? It may not be just
making money. They may they may have another objective altogether.
In my book, I talk about the National Inquirer and

(01:09:01):
the fact that for many, many years, as you probably know,
the National Inquirer was the only national newspaper to cover
the UFO topic. What many people don't know is that
it was started by a guy who did a stint
in the CIA Psychological Warfare Department before buying the newspaper
that became the National Inquirer, and nobody has ever figured

(01:09:21):
out who funded him to do that. So I argue
in the book that it's very likely that the purpose
of National Inquirer. One of the purposes was not just
to make money for Gene Pope, but to use the
paper as a way of discrediting the UFO topic. In
other words, if you downplay it in the main media
of the New York Times, the newspaper's record, but you

(01:09:43):
play it up in this ridiculous tabloid. It puts a
negative spin on the whole topic, which is exactly what
the Robertson panel that is trying to do or said
they would try to do. So, you know, a lot
of these Internet phenomena may be something like that. They
may be behind the scenes being funded by people with
an entirely different agenda than just making money. I've been

(01:10:05):
told that Facebook was founded by some of the people
that were connected with something called Total Information Awareness. Do
you know about that?

Speaker 4 (01:10:13):
This is the whole you know, Gene, we haven't talked
about techno, but that guy Zuckerman, right, the Facebook guy
is his name not Zuckerman. It's like a kid. I've
heard some commentary about that as well. I don't know, Gene,
have you heard anything along? I mean, you've heard of
that rumor, right, Oh, I've heard of so many people.

Speaker 7 (01:10:38):
Hi, this is Don Ecker and you are tuned into
the Para cast with Gene Steinberg and David Vietney. Hey,
let me tell you what you're going to hear. Steph
here that you probably won't hear anywhere else hear that,
George Snorri.

Speaker 2 (01:10:55):
We have Terry Hanson, author of the Missing Time, which
is not about missing time in the sense of UFO abductions,
but missing times in the sense of the news media
complicity in the UFO cover up. All right, so maybe
let's look at that these so called new media moguls,
people involved in places like Facebook, people designed to get

(01:11:17):
people to participate. Is this also come some kind of
participation of the cover up? Is it a way to
deflect our attentions from what's really going on.

Speaker 3 (01:11:27):
Well, it's certainly possible that's going on. I mean, you know,
the the I think the public public relations industry has
certainly glommed onto the Internet in a big way, and they're,
you know, they're using it for whatever nefarious purposes they
may be getting paid for. And some of those may
be political, some of them maybe could be related to UFOs.

(01:11:49):
I mean, there's sort of this ongoing battle between the
people who don't want us to know about flying saucers
and so on, and you know, the people who are
trying to get the information out. So the battle has
I think effectively shifted from the old arena, which is
the traditional media to the new media, and it stands

(01:12:10):
the reason that they would they would try to use
some of those same methods just to varying degree you
adapted to the new arena of the new media or
the Internet.

Speaker 2 (01:12:20):
Well, earlier in the show, we were talking about the
involvement of the government in UFO investigative organizations. I think,
of course, the progenitor of government involvement was Nightcap, peopled
by after Major Donald Keiho took over the former head
of the CIA, other military officials. It seemed like, Gee,
if we're going to have a military cover up, they're

(01:12:40):
all here in Nightcap. Okay, but that organization is long
ago and far away. Do they play that game in
a more subtle fashion now? Is there real infiltration and
mof ON and any of the other organizations.

Speaker 3 (01:12:54):
Well, I don't know. But what we do know is
that the Robertson panel specific said back in nineteen fifty
three that the UFO groups had to be watched because
of their potential impact on public thinking. So my inclination
is to think that they're still doing that. I don't
think things have changed that much, but I can't I

(01:13:16):
can't prove it. You know, you can't. You can't identify
who's working for the CIA, because they don't come out
and tell you, you know, they're getting paid behind the scenes,
or they're working for some front of organization or something
like that. Just there's no way to definitively prove that.
It's rare that we can make these connections. But one
of the surprising things that happened when I was researching

(01:13:37):
my book was that during the nineteen sixties, when all
the UFO activity was taking place over the ICBM field,
CBS News came out with a program called UFO's Friend
for or Fantasy, and it was narrated by Walter Cronkite, who,
as you know, used to be regarded as a very
credible reporter. But it turns out that he was actually

(01:13:57):
working for the CIA, because a letter was found from
Thornton Page to the Robertson panel basically confirming that he
played behind the scenes role in writing a script for
that program. So again, you know, the long arm of
the CIA was reaching out to one of its trusted
media assets, which was CBS, in order to put a

(01:14:18):
negative spin on the UFO topic. And so these things
do happen, There's no doubt about it.

Speaker 4 (01:14:24):
So how do you separate the signal from the noise?

Speaker 1 (01:14:27):
Terry?

Speaker 4 (01:14:28):
Obviously you've been doing this for a long time, and
you know, we get we get very frustrated in this discussion.
You know, how do you how do you claw away
at the junk to get to the to the real
core underneath? I mean, what do you what do you
do on a personal level to try to separate signal
from noise?

Speaker 3 (01:14:45):
Well, that's a real good, good question. I could probably
talk about it for a couple of hours, but.

Speaker 2 (01:14:50):
We can do it for forty minutes, Terry, And well, I.

Speaker 3 (01:14:55):
Actually have been writing about this very topic recently. I'm
trying to try and to write another book, but it's
kind of slow going. But one of the chapters is
totally devoted to that point, that that problem of you
know what, what kind of epistemological rules do we need
to develop to make sense of what's happening? And part

(01:15:19):
of it, I think is you have to be open
minded at the same time as you're quite skeptical. You know,
you have to find There's a writer named Robert Anton Wilson.
He used to talk about something called maybe logic that
you can never could never really believe in anything. You
just to be in a permanent state of suspended judgment,
because you know, a lot of times things come out

(01:15:41):
that appear initially to be complete nonsense, and after you
start digging into them, you find, much to your surprise,
that there's something to it after all. So you know,
you can't you can't be too quick to judge situations,
very especially very complicated situations. There are people out they're
trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you know,

(01:16:03):
and they have tremendous resources and they can do some
very clever things. In World War One, there was an
organization the government set up called the Four Minute Men,
and this was a national organization of community leaders that
the government paid to go out and give seemingly spontaneous
speeches in favor of World War One, in favor of
attacking the Kaiser and so on. And this was all

(01:16:25):
very highly orchestrated. But to the average person, you know,
he'd go to see a play or a movie or
something like that, and some guy would stand up and
give this impassioned speech and it seemed like just a
spontaneous outpouring of sentiment. But in fact, it was a
highly organized program that the government had to win people
over to entering the war. So a lot of things

(01:16:48):
that seems spontaneous or just accidental are quite carefully planeted.
I think about the nine to eleven thing where they
found this, they claim that they found this guy's passport,
slightly seeing passport of Muhammadada, I think it was lying
in the street. Well, how easy it is just to
drop something like that in a place where somebody would

(01:17:09):
find it, as you know, and then people would see
that and say, oh, hi, here's the evidence, you know,
the smoking gun. So it's rather complicated to get at
the truth of anything really definitively, and I think you
just have to be very very skeptical and get at
the same time very open minded. It's a weird state
of mind to.

Speaker 2 (01:17:29):
Be very perverse about this. We have now the sponsorship,
evidently official sponsorship by the media, certain elements of the
media in new movements like the Tea Party movement, which
is possibly manifesting itself in some kind.

Speaker 4 (01:17:42):
Of potential third party.

Speaker 2 (01:17:45):
So is that part of the conspiracy too, that we
create these organizations to manipulate the world of politics, to
get certain people into office to present their agenda. I mean,
this is going beyond just UFOs obviously.

Speaker 3 (01:17:58):
Sure, well, I think there's always just kind of ongoing
jostling for control, you know, like among the people who
are who have an agenda one one sort or another.
It's like the old saying, you know, politician is someone
who finds a parade and marches in front of it.
Whenever a parade gets organized, there's all kinds of people
that come out of the woodwork and try to capitalize

(01:18:19):
on that movement for their own objectives.

Speaker 4 (01:18:21):
Part of the problem that we find with the paracast
and trying to talk about this topic seriously, Terry, is
that you come to understand and it's again, you know,
kind of this little intersect back with the Internet, that
when you even bring up a topic of UFOs, you're
already now in a sandbox. It's very polluted. There's a

(01:18:41):
tremendous amount of misinformation out there, there's a tremendous amount
of mythology out there. What you end up running into
is this situation where you come to think that maybe
people don't want to know the truth about this that
and especially here in the States, it.

Speaker 2 (01:18:59):
Seems like in so many levels.

Speaker 4 (01:19:00):
We're in so many different stages of denial about so
many aspects of who we are as a nation. I
know that this is where some of our listeners will
out right and saying, please keep your political thoughts out
of this. But the bottom line is that you know,
the minute you have more than two humans in a room,
you've got politics. That's just where exactly that's the human condition,

(01:19:21):
you know. With with this topic, what happens is that
you basically you have people who basically are either preaching
to the choir. You know, our listeners tend to identify
with what we're saying because they have sort of hit
the wall with what other people are coming into this with,
you know, where it's like ooh, disclosure, ooh, the space Brothers, ooh,

(01:19:44):
helping us evolve. Where that's one mindset about the UFO
topic where people basically, and I know I'm repeating myself
on this show, but that's sort of what happens when
we have these discussions. People are using the UFO topic
as a proxy religion. It's basically as for religion.

Speaker 3 (01:20:01):
Yeah right right, And you don't know how much of
that is just spontaneous, you know, springing from the general
confusion of humanity or to what extent it's being orchestrated.
All we know though, is that, you know, the government
has basically said, via the Robertson Panel that their mission
was to keep UFO reports out of the newspapers. They

(01:20:22):
wanted to suppress the topic. So I have to believe
that a certain amount of this, not not all of it, certainly,
but a certain amount of it is traceable back to
this decision on the part of the government to try
to try to suppress the topic. And you don't see
any real change in the way the media is reporting this.
They haven't suddenly become more astute. I mean, there's any

(01:20:46):
good beginning journalist could go out and research and write
a pretty good article about the UFO topic, just based
on the you know, the top ten books that have
been written or whatever. But suddenly, you know, somehow the
major newspapers can't seem to do that. I mean, they
can't even put together a halfway unbiased or objective article

(01:21:07):
about it. It's gone beyond that.

Speaker 2 (01:21:10):
You can't even have investigative journalism anymore because those departments
are the first to be cut. Investigative journalists aren't always
the ones to generate the profit. You know what generates
the profit these days? Well, Tiger Woods, you're in.

Speaker 5 (01:21:31):
The paracast with Gee Steinberg and David Bienning. You never
know what's.

Speaker 1 (01:21:36):
Going to happen.

Speaker 3 (01:21:37):
The next.

Speaker 2 (01:21:42):
We have Terry Hanson, author of The Missing Times, exploring
the UFO cover up. And maybe in the last thirty
five minutes or so, we could look at solutions, because
we certainly have spent well over an hour and a
half talking about the problems. So is there a solution?
How do we solve this problem? How do we get
UFO research back on track? How do we find out what,

(01:22:05):
if anything the government knows? Terry, tell us how to
do this? You must tell us how to do that.
We need to know. Now, let's look at the avenues
in five minutes, in fact thirty seconds. We need, of
course the reader's digest version.

Speaker 3 (01:22:19):
Well, I think there are a few a few things
that are that are useful to know. I would say
first of all that if you anyone who reads Richard
Dolan's two volume set of UFOs and the National Security
I think, or maybe tim Timothy Goods, some of Timothy

(01:22:39):
goods better books, or you know, there's a number of
fairly well known books about the UFO subject has to
at least entertain the possibility that there are other intelligences
involved with us right now. I mean, I think it's
pretty hard to explain all this activity to UFO activity
without coming to a conclusion that there's somebody else other

(01:23:00):
than human human beings here. So that's the first step.
And at that point, then if you start reflecting on
the various interest groups that would you know, that would
be affected by that realization, certain things start to fall
into place. I mean, we know that there's something called
the black budget which the government has, which has been

(01:23:22):
growing steadily since since the Atomic Energy Commission was set up,
And given that there's an obvious connection between UFOs and
nuclear weapons, that's very likely that a lot of the
people in Los Alamos and places like that changed the
focus of their research to anti gravity or UFOs or

(01:23:44):
something of that nature, or something related to how these
flying spacers work. Will the government ever open up and
acknowledge all this, I'm pretty skeptical about it, and I
think the reason is that it would be, you know,
just an incredibly major scandal if they ever did, because
they would have to admit that for one, you know,
one thing they've lied about it for fifty years, that

(01:24:04):
they've been siphoning off billions, if not hundreds of billions
of dollars in a clandestine research. You know, there are
no winners in that scenario from the point of view
of a politician. So I don't expect that that's going
to happen. But you know, if you just get to
the point where you know the government has an incentive
to lie to us and that they do it regularly,

(01:24:26):
that's a good start. And unfortunately, there are a lot
of people out there who haven't gotten to that point,
and that they tend to believe everything the government says
about UFOs and other marginal topics. So skepticism.

Speaker 2 (01:24:37):
But isn't that strange? Though it's the strange economy. We
don't believe the government. We don't believe the Democrats, we
don't believe the president. Even we don't believe the Republicans.
We don't believe them about healthcare, about taxes, about the deficit,
but we believe them when they say UFOs aren't real.

Speaker 3 (01:24:55):
Yeah, well it is strange.

Speaker 4 (01:24:58):
I got two words for you, guys, cog of dissonance.

Speaker 2 (01:25:01):
I'm done Okay, David, you don't be provincial next time.

Speaker 3 (01:25:09):
Well, that's what's fascinating about the nine to eleven debate
is that you have you have basically two competing conspiracy theories,
or maybe maybe three. Can competing conspiracy theories.

Speaker 4 (01:25:21):
Defineople who.

Speaker 3 (01:25:23):
Even the people who support the government are basically conspiracy theorists.
So that's maybe we're making some progress here in recognizing
that the world is a hive of conspiracies. You know,
there's a bunch of interlocking conspiracies at work at any
given time. Conspiracy is just a couple of people getting
together to try to control events. And if conspiracies didn't happen,

(01:25:46):
we wouldn't need the FBI, we wouldn't need the police force,
you know. I mean, that's what criminal activity is about. It's,
you know, trying to control things clandestinely and illegal fashion.

Speaker 4 (01:25:58):
Well that's what corporate I mean, one could make an
argument that today that's what the business of being a
corporation is about.

Speaker 3 (01:26:04):
Oh, absolutely absolutely. I mean there's a great documentary called
The Corporation. I'm sure you love it. Improve I mean
they basically say that corporations are just giant, soulless machines
that are dedicated to making money, and they don't care
about people or the impact of what they do. They're
just grinding away, you know.

Speaker 4 (01:26:25):
But but you have to finish that with and what
is what's presented in the corporation is that they are
exactly what you've described, except at a certain point in
history they were given the kinds of rights that are
typically reserved for individuals.

Speaker 3 (01:26:40):
Sure, well, you know, I voted for Ralph Nader in
the last well at least two elections in a row.
I've kind of forgotten which ones. But and I think
Natter has his finger on the pulse here. You know
that the corporations have so much power in the United States.
They have taken over the US government from the inside.
I Meanlizabeth Warren was on TV the other day talking

(01:27:02):
about the economy, and she said, you know, they get
really upset when when they hear what I say on television.
But they've got a thousand lobbyists out there I love
countering everything I say. And do you know how can
they be worried about one person speaking out about the economy.
I mean, you know, the game is stacked in their favor.
And unless we can somehow change that law, you know,

(01:27:26):
and take away their legal status as persons, or at
least make them responsible for what they do, you know,
like if a corporation breaks the law, they should get
the death penalty. They should be broken up and scattered
to the wind and give the money that there are
various stockholders, you know, there should be penalties for what
they do.

Speaker 4 (01:27:45):
You're accent right, and you're not going to get any
kind of descent from us. But of course the problemtary
is that it seems like that ship has saled, and
and in fact, one could, I think, very easily make
an argument this is the history of humanity. Basically money
is power and everything else is nonsense. And basically whoever's

(01:28:05):
got the money has got the power. And to try
to bring down this is such an entrenched thing in
human history that to try to counter that it's almost
as if it were a fool's folly. You really can't.

Speaker 3 (01:28:19):
Well, it would take a very concerted grassroots uprising. I
think to force the government to become more transparent and accountable.
I think that's what needs to be done, and I
guess I harbor some hope that it might eventually happen,
but I agree that the things all look very good

(01:28:40):
right now. I mean, actually, we left the United States
and moved to Canada because we could see a lot
of the things that were happening and it didn't look
too good. And I know quite a few people who've
done the same. I think the smart people are getting
out and moving to another part of the world because
they just sense that the whole system is coming down.

Speaker 4 (01:28:56):
Well, but see at that point, and that's really interesting
that you say that. Do you think though, that, because
we have a global economy, if if something radical were
to happen in the States, if there were to be
if there were to be let's say that banking collapse
that was supposed to have happened, that TARP supposedly held off,

(01:29:20):
which I don't buy a word of any of that,
if that collapse were to happen, where would you be
able to be safe anywhere in the world at that point?
What do you think?

Speaker 3 (01:29:30):
Well, that's a good question. I mean a lot of
people say, you know, if you really get down to it,
you're safe. If you can grow your own food and
you've got a roof and some water to drink, you know,
that's right. It's about the only security you can have
in a world it's increasingly seems to be run by
criminal kbals of one kind or another that's just looting
the country for their own narrow interests. You know, it's

(01:29:53):
a band scenario. I mean, civilizations do collapse and we
may we may be next in line. We don't start
to take are you know? I mean that's why I
wrote the book really was to try to expose some
of these things and try to get people thinking about
transparent government and the need for accountability. Where are tax
dollars going, what are they being used for? What are
these black budget programs all about? Are people ciphering off

(01:30:16):
the money the Swiss bank accounts or they actually are
they doing something useful with it?

Speaker 1 (01:30:23):
Out there?

Speaker 2 (01:30:24):
You're doing something useful for the black budget, maybe it
would help. But peering behind the veil of secrecy for UFOs,
are we seeing any indications of what the government really
knows or do they know nothing?

Speaker 3 (01:30:35):
Well, my sense is that they do know quite a bit.
And I say that because they spend so much money
on intelligence gathering of all kinds, and they have the
apparatus to track everything that goes on in the atmosphere.
I think that they probably started setting this intelligence gathering
apparatus up fairly early on, and they know quite a

(01:30:58):
bit by now. But I don't think they're going to
disclose what they know to us if they can get
around it. So I'm not optimistic that they're going to
voluntarily come clean because there's so many skeletons that are
going to come out of that closet, and it's a
political nightmare. I mean, they've kind of painted themselves into

(01:31:20):
a corner and they're stuck.

Speaker 2 (01:31:23):
So well, we speak to about complicity here, and we
talk about the press working in concert with the government
to hide the truth about UFOs. So it goes to
follow that if the UFOs are real, there's some kind
of intelligence behind them. Is the government involved in some
kind of conspiracy involving interaction with aliens? Is there any
evidence of that other than just claims.

Speaker 3 (01:31:43):
Well, when I look at when I read these reports
from the nineteen fifties, particularly airline pilot's reports, what seems
to me is that the UFOs, we're making their presence
known in no uncertain terms. In other words, I've had
pilots tell me that this flew alongside me for fifteen
minutes it was demonstrating in a clear, unambiguous way we

(01:32:06):
are here. So a number of people have said that
there was some kind of contact that took place back
in the fifties and that perhaps they're out of that
contact grew some kind of collusion between the aliens one
or more groups in the government. I don't you know,
as crazy as that may sound to some people, I

(01:32:27):
wouldn't dismiss that possibility. I mean that that could very
well be going on. I hope they have our interests
in mind, and I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:32:37):
Know, well why would they.

Speaker 3 (01:32:39):
They probably have their own interests in mind. Is there
anything like us? You know, it's conceivable that one of
the reasons that government can't come clean about all this
is that, you know, the aliens don't basically want them to.
Well that's something.

Speaker 4 (01:32:53):
Yeah, that's something we've maintained on the show that if
disclosure wherever to happen, it would not be initiated on
the humans side. We are not in a dominant position
in all of this, right, But.

Speaker 3 (01:33:04):
At the same time, they continue to demonstrate their presence.
You know, you continue to have things like the Hudson
Valley sightings and the Triangular sightings in Belgium, and you
know there's these public displays that they're here, which is
sort of curious.

Speaker 4 (01:33:19):
Well, let me give you another way to interpret that.
I understand what you're saying, Terry, but check this out.
What if it's just a situation where they're doing what
they're doing and we're ants. It's like, well, you're doing
what they're doing, and oh gee, the humans see us.
So what It's not like the humans can actually do
anything to stop us. It's not that think they can.
They can't take us out of the sky. We can

(01:33:42):
now maneuver them. So we're just going to do what
we do with impunity, because it doesn't really matter what
the humans think. And this is always difficult for us
to understand because of course we're the center of the universe.
We're God's children, and we are the highest and mightiest.
And sure it's great for us, but if you had
a civilization that was a few tens of thousands, hundreds

(01:34:05):
of thousands, or even million years older, I'm guessing they
have a bigger superiority complex than we do.

Speaker 3 (01:34:12):
Oh, I think you're right. I mean, I think what
we're dealing with is not one civilization that there probably
are hundreds, if not thousands of technological civilizations in our
galaxy alone, and that's based on theoretical studies that have
been done by scientists. So I think that's the safest assumption.
And some of them are probably so far in advanced

(01:34:32):
we'll never understand what they're doing.

Speaker 2 (01:34:34):
Well, said the other theories that really the UFO antities,
at least some of them are part of another race
that coexists with us, and that's why they're so concerned
about the fate of the planet, about global warming, about
weapons testing, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (01:34:49):
Well, sure, I mean some of them, the ones that
are monitoring the nuclear activity obviously have an interest in
what we're doing. Whatever reason. It might be selfish and
selfish interest than an altruistic interest, but they're clearly monitoring
what we're up to. And I sort of compare it
to if you lived in a next to a forest
and you suddenly discovered, to your amazement that the chimpanzees

(01:35:12):
next door had developed hand grenades, you'd be pretty interested
in that. I think. So you know that basically what
we did were these apes that have just come down
out of the trees, and we've got nuclear weapons and
we're starting to go out into space. And you know,
I mean that's a little alarming, probably particularly when you
see what we've been using our technologies for, which is

(01:35:33):
slaughtering each other by the millions.

Speaker 4 (01:35:36):
Well, at least it reduces the population explosion.

Speaker 5 (01:35:54):
You've entered another dimension. You've entered the para cast.

Speaker 4 (01:36:17):
We have Terry Hanson, author of The Missing Times, exploring
UFO government cover up before the break. Did you say
something about it shows that we're actively reducing the population.

Speaker 2 (01:36:31):
About wars, there's two different ways to reduce the population.

Speaker 4 (01:36:35):
One is control, and the other might be by just
having a war. So human brutality is something that's bred
by the Earth in order for us to control our
own population. Now, actually, I suspect that human brutality is
just simply this base part of our of our behavior
that we can't escape because in the end we are animals,

(01:36:56):
you know what.

Speaker 2 (01:36:56):
We should look at another thing here about the way
the government and participates in things. Now, an interview we
had with Nick red For, an author of the book
about contact ease. He was suggesting government involvement in some
of his contact cases. We have, of course, where Orfeo
Andrelucci actually took some kind of apparent psychedelic drug at
the hands of a possible military personage. We have Howard Mender,

(01:37:20):
one of the classic contacteas who said he was part
of a government experiment. So do you think that the
government has staged certain UFO events, contact sightings, etc. For
their own purposes?

Speaker 3 (01:37:32):
Well, it's certainly possible. I mean one of the scenarios
that I think the Pentagon has a lot of different
scenarios for manipulating the public, and one of them is,
you know, conceivably they may try to use the UFO
phenomenon as a way of frightening the width other people
so that they you know, banded together, so that they
can be heard in one direction or another. I wouldn't

(01:37:52):
put it past them. I mean, you know, if you
know about Project Northwoods and nine to eleven and some
of the other suspicious things that have gone on, I
think they probably don't have too many scruples about they
what they might try to do. I don't trust that
the military has our best interests in mind. I think
it's a conglomeration of corporations that are making huge amounts

(01:38:13):
of money on weapons manufacturing.

Speaker 4 (01:38:15):
Yeah, we're back to Eisenhowerd's infamous warning. Yeah yeah, we
keep coming back to that over and over again, and
that certainly seems borne out by if you stop today
and look at the size of the defense budget in
the United States, it's an insane It is literally an
insane number.

Speaker 3 (01:38:33):
Oh yeah, and you know we're the government is essentially
broke as it is, and yet we're engaged in this
evidently endless war in Asia that's projected to go on
and definitely draining lifeblood out of the country. I mean,
it's just nuts.

Speaker 4 (01:38:49):
It's scary, because there are precedents in history for this
that people don't want to hear. And we're back to
the American state of denial. Except the problem, of course
being that it's my belief that we don't live in
a world of nation states anymore. I just don't buy
that anymore. We live in an interconnected world. And the
problem I think, and I could, I'd love to be man,

(01:39:12):
would I love to be wrong about this. Nothing would
give me greater satisfaction than to be wrong about the
idea that if the United States were to start a
domino effect, if we go down, this empire falls the
problems we are so interconnected as a planet that the
repercussions of that, I don't know that we could even

(01:39:34):
on an optical holographic core computer model that my friends
in Argentina have said to me, Hey, you know, if
you guys go under, it's going to kill us down here,
and we're pretty far away from you, and it's going
to bring us down as well. You know, you guys fault.
It's like talk about the corporation that's too big to fail.
At the same time we're completely leveraged out. I mean,

(01:39:57):
and again this is part of the American psyche that
people don't want to know this, but you know, essentially,
and I've said this in another venue to put it
into into into context so that people understand that, Hey,
take every tax dollar you've ever paid in your whole life,
take every tax dollar that everybody you know has ever

(01:40:18):
paid in their whole lives. And it just got burned
last week in Iraq. And that's that was true years ago,
it's true now and there's no sign of the stopping.
So the question is at that point one has to say, well,
you know, what is the real a what's the real
value of money be? What does it really represent? And see,
you know, is it a situation where it's all contrived anyway,

(01:40:41):
and the debt reaches a certain amount and people just.

Speaker 2 (01:40:44):
Like write it off.

Speaker 4 (01:40:45):
But the problem being that the debt is owed to
these other countries. Somehow, I find it hard to believe
that the Chinese are going to write us right off
our debt to make us feel better about ourselves. I
don't see that happening. So you have this problem, and
it seems to you know, coming back to the topic
of the discussion, we live in denial about so many things,

(01:41:07):
even the veracity of our own media at this point
and the messages they give us that it's almost as
if you're in amaze that has no end.

Speaker 3 (01:41:17):
Yeah, well that's right. I mean there's a saying in journalism.
I'm sure you've heard it, follow the money. And if
you can't follow the money, if the government is arranged
in such a way that there is no accountability, no
traceability for funds, you know, it's over. I mean, the
game is over, you know. I mean we're just going
to fall apart as a society because nobody has any

(01:41:37):
way of finding out what's going on anymore. We're just
a wilderness and mirrors.

Speaker 4 (01:41:41):
Yeah, where you have some section and again not to
turn into a conspiracy theory episode, but gravity is sort
of pulling us that way. You have some chunk of
people who are obviously making money on all of this,
who are basically profiting, and at this point it's not
hard to figure out who those people are. I'll give
you a hint. Goldman's Sacks, the average employee benefit it

(01:42:05):
averaged out over the company for this year is something
like seven hundred and forty two thousand dollars each. That's
the bonus for every employee. And again I realize that's
kind of averaged out over everybody, but you see those
kinds of numbers and you think to yourself, well, gee,
there's theft going on here. There's improprieties going on here,

(01:42:25):
and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Speaker 3 (01:42:29):
Yeah. I read somewhere, I think it was on Bloomberg
News that the people at gold and Sacks are starting
to carry sight arms because they're worried about you know,
public just kind of rising up and bumping these people off.
And well, that's a legitimate concern when society starts to
fall apart, you know, I mean, even the big shots
are not going to be safe.

Speaker 4 (01:42:46):
I've already read it's funny. I reported on that on
another show I do that's got a political bent, And
I've already read since then reports that basically state that
those claims are exaggerated. Yeah, well they might be right,
But then I've already read yet other reports coming on
the heels of those saying that, Well, you have to
see in what states they're registering these arms and what

(01:43:09):
games they're potentially playing. So again you're back to this
problem where something pops up, you hit that, you do
the whack a mole, and it starts coming up all
over the place. And so now you've got to figure
out some method for sifting through this. And I just
have the recognition that for the vast majority of people
who are concerned about paying their mortgages, about raising their kids,

(01:43:33):
about putting food on the table, basically people are so
caught up in the game of survival that they simply
do not have the energy the will to pursue any
of this, because essentially you've got a situation where people
are selfish. Basically, they just really worry about the little
bubble that extends around them and theirs and as long

(01:43:53):
as that bubble is comfortable, then the rest of the
world can be going to hell in a hand basket
and they're not going to really care. And here we
are now in a time where you've got this extreme
expression of this. You've got kids immersing themselves in their
video games. They don't go outside anymore. They're basically just
living in these virtual worlds. And as long as they

(01:44:14):
have enough stimulation in those virtual worlds, their content to
just be there.

Speaker 3 (01:44:20):
And ye, and what's a little disturbing about them, is it?
A lot of what they do is shooting it, shoot
at people and blow things up. Oh yeah, So if
it ever breaks out into the real world from the
virtual world, it's going to be a pretty scene.

Speaker 4 (01:44:33):
And there again, you can play the game of I
know that when I was grown up as a kid
in New Jersey, I was fascinated with playing war. I
had plastic gun toys and me and my friends would
go out and we would stage mock battles. I think
what was effectively happening is what happens with all humans.
I mean, basically, this is like human nature. And hopefully,

(01:44:53):
if you're a kid, you can get it out of
your system. So it doesn't doesn't leach over into adulthood
where you're an adult looking at you know, buying weapons
systems and new types of stealth bombers. I sometimes think
that these military generals are often the kids that didn't
play war when they were kids. Now they are adults
and they're playing works that they got way better toys.

Speaker 3 (01:45:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:45:16):
Not a comfortable thought, by the way, and I'd like
to be wrong about that. Yet again, when it comes
down to Terry, I mean, do you do you hold
out any hope in our lifetimes for us getting any
closer to understanding what is going on with this? Is
there some way that we as independent media can have
a positive effect on revealing the truth, on peeling away

(01:45:37):
the layers of the onion.

Speaker 3 (01:45:39):
Well, I come back to the point that I made earlier,
and that there is a tremendous amount of very well
documented information on this topic already that we don't really
have to wait for the government to tell us that
there are other intelligences here to reset conclusion. There's a
tremendous amount of evidence that that's the case. So, in
a sense, regardless of what officialdom tells us, we know

(01:46:00):
UFO phenomenon is real, and that we live in a
universe that's populated by beings other than just humans. That
itself is a step forward in terms of our conception
of reality and place of humanity and a grand scheme
of things. I remember years ago I interviewed a guy

(01:46:20):
named James mccampbell. I talked about this very subject, and
he said, some people will never know. Some people will
never figure it out. They'll always be in the dark.
But it's going to be a gradual, evolutionary process. That's
just the way science goes. It takes a long time
to figure even fairly basic things out human beings. There's
a lot of confusion and struggle and argument, and this

(01:46:43):
is not a unique situation. In the early part of
the twentieth century, most astronomers couldn't agree on what these
fuzzy objects were in the sky. They thought some of
them thought they were all inside our galaxy. Some of
them thought they were outside the galaxy. Today we know
that there's all sorts of phenomena. They're called, you know,
go to the COVID, a name of Amazia or nebula objects.

(01:47:05):
Some of our galaxies that are unbelievably far away, and
some of are clouds of gas within our galaxy and
some are exploding stars. And so, you know, we're just
starting to resolve this information gradually, and I think we
are gaining insight, but we're still struggling with a tremendously
complex problem. Know, Einstein said, we'll never understand it all,

(01:47:26):
and that's probably true of Us'll we've got our work
cut out for us, and it's going to be a
problem that's going to occupy inquiring minds for probably many
generations to come.

Speaker 2 (01:47:35):
We only have a few members left, Terry, maybe we
could look at your inquiring mind. You're working on a
second book. You're telling us where are you going to
cover the subject? From this vantage point having done book one?
Looking into a book too.

Speaker 3 (01:47:47):
Well, I'm trying to think about about the consequences of
an open society and if I somehow, through some miracle
or you know, some some series of advance, we were
able to return to a situation where we could find
out what the black budget dollars are going for, and
that you know, there were some fundamental new technologies that

(01:48:08):
came to light. How those technologies would affect our society.
So it's kind of a big question and a little
bit nebulous, and I hope to talk to a lot
of people about it and get their perspectives on it.
But it's still very early and I don't have too
much to show for it at this point other than
a general concept and some few pages. So I'm really

(01:48:33):
just getting started on it now.

Speaker 2 (01:48:34):
Having written this book, has the government cond to Terry
Hanson said, you know what, we kind of have to
put you under deep security here.

Speaker 3 (01:48:43):
Well no, but you know, one of the people that
reviewed my book was a guy who is a CIA contractor,
and he after he did the review or published the review,
he showed up at my house one day and sort
of out of the blue, you know, called me up
and said, I'd like to stop in see you. And
I've always wondered whether he was there on official business

(01:49:03):
or not, because I've heard a similar story from Linda
Howe and a few other people.

Speaker 2 (01:49:08):
Okay, when he visited you, what did he do? What
did he say? Well?

Speaker 3 (01:49:12):
I think he was just sounding me out, trying to
find out what I knew, and I think he was
surprised at what I had written and wanted to know
how I figured it out. Things like that.

Speaker 2 (01:49:23):
So did you ask him about his intelligence connections a
little bit.

Speaker 3 (01:49:27):
Yeah, we talked about that. I'd rather not say who
it is, but I mean I've had contact with other
people in the military that seem interested in me. Let's
put it that way. But you know, the book is
out there. I mean the way part of the reason,
the way I published it. A lot of times, when
you publish a book on something that is controversial or
you know, the publisher can kind of kill the story,
or it can kill the book, it can buy the

(01:49:48):
rights and you're dead in the water. That happened to
me with another book. I wrote a totally different type
of book. But so that's I just went directly to
publishing it myself, basically because I had control all the
whole process. And I think more and more writers are
doing that because publishing companies don't have that much to
offer anymore in terms of promotion and so on or distribution.

Speaker 4 (01:50:10):
I mean that the publisher, their basic thing was to
get the books on the shelves, right exactly, get your
book in Amazon, you know. At that point, Yeah, what's
the publisher doing for taking the vast bulk of the
of the profit.

Speaker 2 (01:50:23):
Another thing about the publishing industry these days is they
don't spend money to promote the book. I mean, we
get press releases about a lot of books. We don't
have enough shows to cover all of them. Some are
quite interesting. So I will occasionally ask publishists, you know, guys,
why don't you advertise in the radio show. We have
the audience, approve an audience around the world. Advertise with
us and you can get the word out about books

(01:50:44):
that we can't get the guests on phone. Reason or another,
Oh no, we have no budget. Well, how can you
sell a book if you don't put money into the process.
Not everybody is going to be a phenomenon.

Speaker 3 (01:50:56):
Yeah, I mean, I think publishers are kind of they're
kind of dying orison a way, or the times have passed.
And by I know, Richard Dolan published both of his
book so himself. One of them was picked up by
Hampton Roads, but initially it was self published. In the
second one was self published.

Speaker 4 (01:51:13):
I think he's done quite well well at that point,
when you start to look at the metrics of it,
you can do really well self publishing, selling so many
fewer books than you would through a major publisher, just
because of the fact that when you run the numbers,
there's no author being paid more than fifteen percent of
net right, so you know when what's net well, usually

(01:51:34):
the margin on the book is like anywhere from forty
four to sixty percent, So you know, the twenty dollars
book subtract, half of that already goes, is right off,
the top is gone, and then you get fifteen percent
of what's left. So you know, if you sell the
book yourself, and you can and you basically are the distributor,

(01:51:55):
you know, whatever money like if you give I think
Amazon takes like a forty four percent margin, but then
you keep the remaining fifty six percent yours. Sure you
know the problem of course with that, and this is
we're not going to turn this into the publishing episode
of the parac Cast, but of course the problem. What
publishers typically did was to take on the risk ahead

(01:52:17):
of time, and that's what they would do. They would
take on the risk, and so you know, you could
get a book into a publisher's hand, they would put
it on the shelves. They would take a risk on you,
because that's how publishing worked.

Speaker 2 (01:52:30):
They would also put money into special displays, end caps
where you pay extra money. Basically bribe the store to
give your book better placement. We only have about a
minute and a half left, Terry, give our listeners a
one minute summary if you can, about this book and
why they need to have a copy.

Speaker 3 (01:52:49):
Okay, well, I think one of the long questions in
the UFO field is what you know why did UFOs
go from becoming a front page story that was covered
by all the major newspapers and magazines and radio shows
in America to becoming a fringe phenomenon. If you want
to understand the answer to that question, that's basically what
my book will tell you, and I think he'll get

(01:53:11):
a lot of insight into how the media work and
how the government the media work together.

Speaker 2 (01:53:16):
Terry Hanson, he's author of the book called The Missing Times.
It doesn't matter that he paid to publish it. It only
means that when you buy a copy, more of the
money you spend goes into his pocket and helps some
fund his research, pay the bills whatever. He has a
site called the Missing Times dot com. That's the Missing
Times dot com and as always we have links to
everything over at the paracast dot com. Terry Hanson, thank

(01:53:38):
you so much for sharing your words of wisdom this
week on The Power Cast.

Speaker 3 (01:53:42):
Okay, thanks David and Gene. Glad to be on the show.

Speaker 2 (01:53:45):
Thanks Terry.

Speaker 1 (01:53:50):
The Power Cast with Gene Steinberg and David Pietny is
a production of Making the Impossible Incorporated. Join us next
week for a new adventure in thea Paricas

All Episodes

Classic Episode: January 3, 2010 — Independent Journalist Terry Hansen

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Classic Episode: January 3, 2010 — Independent Journalist Terry Hansen