Comments on: A Startling Revelation

By: Bill Hancock

Bill Hancock — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:31:01 +0000

Glad to be of service!! LOL !!!!

By: Raven

Raven — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:32:56 +0000

You DOG! Now you’ve put me in mind to watch a Dirty Harry movie tonight. The Mrs. is visiting her family in Colombia for a couple of weeks to I’m indulging in la vida loca, or rather, in my case, la vida mundana. A Dirty Harry movie might just be life on the edge!

By: Bill Hancock

Bill Hancock — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:05:52 +0000

Maybe that “somebody else” my artist friend Larry Byrd talks about put the squelch on ALL of them! They sure do seem to get shut down pronto once they get into office on that “release the UFO data” business, don’t they?
Oh yeah, one last thing in this “thread that goes on forever”, the expectations of the Russkies as to the “Silent Surrender” thing…plus my “Corbomite Maneuver”/Poker analogy…would seem to be very “iffy” on account of how many of us have believed over time that a lot of the “captured alien technology” info might have been whipped up DIS-info to scare the bejeebies out of them. Trepidation is prudence if the “other guys” have weapons…and. maybe, allies from space…which make your ICBM nukes pale to bean shooters in comparison. It kinda boils it all down to this in the analytical Soviet mind:

“Uh uh. I know what you’re
thinking: did he fire six
shots or only five. Now
considering this is a Smith
& Wesson .44 Magnum, the
most powerful handgun in the
world…and will blow your
head clean off…you have to
ask yourself ‘Do I feel lucky?’
Well…DO you, punk?”

By: Raven

Raven — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:11:08 +0000

Admittedly, foreign policy was not Carter’s forte’. But, as you say, he’s been a decent guy in his post presidency years.

You know I’ve always wondered what was said to him that made him back off his “Release all UFO information to the public!” stance. It’s hard for me to believe one denial by GB version 1.0 all by itself was enough to forever squelch his campaign intimations that he would release everything if elected.

I think Ford made some similar statements and so did Clinton. I’m not sure about Nixon. He was probably FROM a UFO!

By: Bill Hancock

Bill Hancock — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:41:53 +0000

In a sense it wouldn’t take much to restore nuclear armaments to a MAD equilibrium, since the number of extant
weapons was always calculated to be enough to wipe out all life on earth many times over…yet you can only be destroyed once. Anything over that is meaningless superfluity. Reagan went for a partial restoration but started moreso on the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka “Star Wars”) which, of course, was ridiculed by the peace-above-all (”better Red than dead”)crowd and which earned him the name “Ronald Ray-gun”. Interesting thing about that was that the poor old “put-upon” Russians started SDI type stuff before Reagan did with a particle beam weapon project called “Red Star”, and most everything done under SDI was in RESPONSE to things they were doing…NOT, as the lefties would boo hoo incessantly, aggressive persecution methodologies. They were the ones, also, that began psychotronic projects like remote viewing and others, which we only developed as countermeasures (Grill Flame & Stargate and such). But in the end SDI drained the Soviets out and the USSR “bankrupted” itself and went belly-up trying to continue the arms race. So much for “Ron Ray-Gun’s”
intellectual ineptitude.

But, yes, all such DID come in response to Carter’s truly mindless defense policies. Your friend scores a three-pointer on that observation. Jimmy Carter does some marvelous work in humanitarian causes, in particular Habitat For Humanity , and was an O.K. governor for Georgia, but as a player in the big-time world of international politics he was hopelessly out of his league ( I say this DESPITE “Miz Lillian’s” ranking of her beloved son ABOVE George Washington on a list of “America’s Greatest Presidents”. ROTFL!!!!)

By: Raven

Raven — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:02:01 +0000

Ostensibly, and this may have been just my friend’s opinion, that episode was a primary factor when Reagan took office in his from-the-git-go insistence on our own buildup of nuclear arms. The idea was to restore MAD to equilibrium (if there is such a thing with that concept!)

By: Nick Redfern

Nick Redfern — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:23:32 +0000

Bill

Nope, no contacts on this at all. Although it sounds highly intriguing, to say the least!!

By: Bill Hancock

Bill Hancock — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:50:00 +0000

Raven…

I’d say you are right in that final analysis. I think likely that is indeed one of those “What was THAT about?” things that will always be a mystery, unless some whistleblower dredges up some data on it at some future point. (Yo, Nick, you got any contacts that might shed any light on this?). It would seem we are dealing with something that actually went down and was experienced first-hand by a very credible source , yet is so bizarre in concept (politically, militarily, and psychologically unfeasible)that it sounds as though it dropped in from the “Outer Limits” or “The Twilight Zone”. My retro-analysis (admittedly off the top of my head, without a lot of hard data to go on) would suggest one thing, but the source said it was a real alert and people seemed to be really prepping for this incomprehensible capitulation. I just don’t have a clue where to go with it from this point, other than to say “This is freaking STRANGE”!

By: Raven

Raven — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:14:03 +0000

Well, as I said, I trust the source implicitly. He was very clear that this was an actual state of alert that took place with virtually everyone holding their breath. If the information had come from any other person I’d have laughed myself silly, but not from this guy.

Oh, well, guess this is one of those things that can never be proven one way or the other.

By: Bill Hancock

Bill Hancock — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:02:37 +0000

Thinking more on this (”Silent Surrender” , and applying “spookanalysis” to it (LOL!), it strikes me as something that might have circulated as sarcasm in the Pentagon in those days. The time you ascribe to it falls within the parameters of the administration of Jimmy “Peanutbrain” Carter and even butts up on the time of Carter’s “Halloween Massacre” at the CIA wherein he stupidly jettisoned almost all HUMINT assets in favor of techno-toys…and had us in a BAD situation until Reagan came into office and worked to rebuild the capability that Carter half destroyed. Reagan may not have been any towering intellect, but he had a hell of a lot more National Defense common sense than Carter ever did. The Pentagon was also annoyed that many acts against the U.S. that most government officials…and the citizenry in general…thought merited a tough response would get, from Carter, a “Letter of Stern Protest”, which most people considered a wussy joke. I wouldn’t be half surprised if “Silent Surrender” wasn’t some Pentagon wags joke implying that Carter would , in fact, work out such a deal with Moscow to avoid “unpleasantness”. Indeed, it was the third world perception of Carter as a “cave-in” President that led to the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the end of his presidency. On reflection, to me it seems entirely possible that “Operation Silent Surrender” might well have been a sarcastic slam on Carter circulating in the Pentagon.

Realistically, there is always uncertainty in international military matters. You can analyse intel data till the cows come home but never be absolutely, entirely CERTAIN about something. We might think we didn’t have the “juice” to kick Russia’s butt, but russia wouldn’t necessarily know that. A lot of this stuff is like playing poker…or the “Corbomite Maneuver” on the old “Star Trek”. Its all about bluffing. The Russians might THINK they MIGHT be able to take us…but they don’t know for sure. And with the stakes so high, could you afford to take the risk? I don’t think so. Too much to lose. They also believed their own Hegelian “manifest destiny” (of the eventual world socialist Utopia) idea of history being ultimately “on their side”, so why would you stupidly risk utter destruction if you were “fated’ to win out anyway. Doesn’t make sense.

Me? I’d keep playing poker with them, regardless. The game at the time wasn’t
Texas Hold “Em . It was MAD….mutually assured destruction…and that’s how I’d have played the hand (as would most Pentagon types, I would imagine). You shot down our satellite. BAM!. Oops. There went one of yours! Are we done?

Probably. VERY probably!

“Silent Surrender”? I doubt it.

Bill