Psychology of cover-ups

[IanR]

On his Hello page, Vortex said:
“I've been doing a bit of research into cover-ups recently (as mentioned in my previous post, with a view to examing the psychology of such things)”.

I am interested in your views on the psychology behind this.

The daftest way of trying to cover something up is to pass it off as a UFO event, as that will simply attract a swarm of interest (as here).

Much better, surely, would be to attribute it to yet another nuclear accident, of which there seem to have been plenty – see here
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A4733622 ... uclear.pdf

Everyone would understand why, being a matter of national security, the event couldn’t be talked about in any detail.

So, I will turn the question on its head and postulate: are some of the supposed nuclear accidents listed in the FoIA files really cover-ups for UFO landings?

Ian

[puddlepirate]

Thanks, Ian.
There's quite a bit of stuff on the web about nuclear accidents in the UK...problems with the transporters is a frequent cause.

Note the term in the linked to document:

Finally, I should like to confirm that there has never been an occurrence involving a UK
nuclear weapon which has represented any threat to public safety.

The key words are 'a UK nuclear weapon'....those at Lakenheath, Bentwaters et al were US nuclear weapons and it says nothing about those.

[puddlepirate]

One last thing.. and I will say nothing more about this so do not ask. If you think such accidents, very serious accidents, involving nuclear devices do not occur then you need to think again. They can and they do. Even today. I have a very close family member currently serving. There was a major problem. He and several others had to receive special (hospitalised) treatment, lasting several weeks. They are all well now. Last November I attended my annual mess dinner and met up with a mate, now more senior in rank then when I served with him. A short private discussion took place. I was reminded in no uncertain terms of my obligations - and that was from a mate.

Do not go anywhere near VLF/ELF comms. Do not go near our submarine fleet. Neither are topics for this forum.

[IanR]

If you think such accidents, very serious accidents, involving nuclear devices do not occur then you need to think again. They can and they do.

The RFI was on land open to the public, of course, so there would be strong public-interest issues. Had the RFI really been in any way nuclear-related I strongly suspect that people far smarter and better-connected than me would have sniffed it out a long time ago.

Ian

[puddlepirate]

The forest is only very sparsely populated and the RFI occured between Christmas and New Year. The area was immediately secured by the USAF - not MoD or local civvy Police nor the RAF or Army, none of whom were that far away. This in itself is odd because the USAF had absolutely no jurisdiction on UK soil. For the USAF to have been so actively involved and in such numbers, suggests that whatever it was belonged to them and that authority to proceed had been granted at the highest (UK) level.

If you search the BBC News website you will find a recent story about two RN sailors killed when the oxygen candle in their boat (SSN) exploded. This was never published at the time and has only just now appeared in the press. Another SSN was held alongside in Gibraltar for some months after the reactor primary cooling system developed a major steam leak. The Spanish went ballistic and wanted the boat moved out. Read up on DML and the maintenance facilities at Devonport dockyard built for the refitting of HM nuclear submarines - there's a report available on the web. Many in Plymouth worked for DML - remember the outcry in Plymouth when it was learned that nuclear boats were to be refitted there? Many places won't allow nuclear powered or nuclear armed ships - certainly nuclear armed - to enter their harbours. New Zealand is one.

Don't run away with the idea we would know because I promise you, the public would be told absolutely nothing at all. If it was serious enough the govt would slap a D notice on the press, so whilst there might be local rumours, that is as far as it would go.

[IanR]

The area was immediately secured by the USAF

Reference, please.

If it was serious enough the govt would slap a D notice on the press.

Which of course didn't happen in the case of the RFI.

Ian

[puddlepirate]

Ian, please! Reference...the whole flippin' RFI is the reference. Where's the evidence that any Brits, other than a couple of coppers who happened by, were involved? And knowing our lot, they probably only turned up because they thought they might find an out of date tax disc or something.

There was no need for a D notice in this instance - are you sure one wasn't issued? - because nobody knew about it other than the USAF and generally speaking the US is paranoid about security. Plus the area around there is barely inhabited at all. The USAF were on it like a rash, according to witness statements and so forth. Given it was the Christmas leave period there were certainly enough LE/SP on base to get involved - plus the others, whatever specialisation they were.

Are you suggesting that the only thing that happened was that Lt Col Halt got bored with the party or whatever, so decided to muster a couple of his troops to chase after the lighthouse for a bit of Christmas fun? In the middle of the night, in mid-winter and in the middle of a forest and that everything else is simply a made up story? Some sense of humour! Glad I wasn't on his watch....I don't have a problem with that provided there is some evidence.

[IanR]

Are you suggesting that the only thing that happened was that Lt Col Halt got bored with the party or whatever, so decided to muster a couple of his troops to chase after the lighthouse for a bit of Christmas fun?

Quite what all those blokes were doing out there in the first place, before they called out Halt from the Christmas party, is a good question that has never been properly answered. Indeed, it has scarcely even been raised. I don't think Halt even knew there was anyone out there until Englund called him out.

What is clear is that Halt got bored looking at lights in the sky because he turned round and went back to base while they were still in the sky. “After an hour or so, I finally made the call to go in," as he said. "We left those things out there.”

Ian

[Vortex]

Hi all,

I'm glad that my suggestion of exploring the psychology of 'cover-ups' has sparked some interest on the forum. With this in mind, I'm going to put forward some of my observations of the common themes that seem to run through these cover-ups and significantly, how these could relate to the RFI. Please note that at this stage this is a general overview and I'm not going to back up claims with specific references, however I will endeavour to do this is at a later stage!

Ok, first things first: humans don't like ambiguity. There's a common approach to human psychology that characterises individuals as 'naive scientists', constantly trying to make sense of the world around them, proposing/testing hypotheses, making predictions, evaluating evidence etc., and all this with the ultimate goal of being able to assert control over our lives and basically, SURVIVE. Therefore, anything ambiguous and uncertain frustrates us. Indeed, it could be said that the very reason we are ALL talking in this forum right now is because of this underlying sense of frustration, i.e. we want to find out the 'truth' relating to the RFI because it's a highly ambiguous situation (or perhaps not, as I will discuss later!) and its reality could (or could not!) have implications for our perception of the world around us. As you can imagine, such powerful human psychology can be manipulated (for a variety of purposes) by those in authority and I believe that this relates significantly to the psychology of cover-ups...

From what I've discovered in my research (I will try and post some examples at a later date), cover-ups (particularly those implemented by military/government agencies) tend to attempt to achieve one of the following two goals:

1. To make a very straight-forward case appear extremely complex.
2. To make an extremely complex case appear very straight-forward and mundane.

As you can see, both of these approaches attempt to exploit human beings' dislike of ambiguity; approach 1 INCREASES frustration, causing us to explore multiple alternative theories/hypotheses in an attempt to find an answer, perhaps disregarding the 'truth' in the process (i.e. throwing out the baby with the bath-water); conversely, approach 2 REMOVES frustration by providing us with a 'quick-fix' answer to the ambiguity, thus removing our need to theorise/hypothesise further and in the process, stop us discovering the genuine 'truth'. I hate to use this as an example, but it could be suggested that the world-famous 'Roswell Incident' fits into a type 1 cover-up. Not speculating about the nature of what crashed at Roswell, but this cover-up has now provided us with at least four 'official' explanations (i.e. a flying disk, a weather balloon, a project Mogul balloon/radar, dummies involved in high-altitude jump tests) and thus a potentially straight-forward incident has now become very complex. What was it that crashed? A disk? A balloon? A radar? Or something else? Who knows???? Add to this the multiple theories from researchers etc. and the water becomes even muddier - Bingo! The cover-up has worked! The question is, where does the RFI fit into this equation? Are we looking at a type 1 or a type 2 cover-up? OR, has a type 3 cover-up approach been employed that attempts to further confuse matters by combining elements of the type 1 AND type 2 approaches?! I digress. I think we need to examine the RFI as an individual case to attempt to answer this question...

What's fascinating about the RFI is that the manner in which it became known to the public was fairly unique and the case doesn't fit into the usual 'incident > media sensation > cover-up' scenario. If the RFI had been on the front pages of the tabloids from day one (i.e. in December 1980), THEN it would have fitted into this scenario, but it wasn't? What seems unique about this case, is that as far as the general public and the media were concerned, prior to the initial News Of The World article, there was no incident!? And if there was no incident, why would you need a cover-up? Now, obviously, we have since learnt that there were civilian eye-witnesses to 'strange lights' etc. at the time of the incident, but there was no incident of such significance that it had impacted on the national or international media. Therefore, it would appear that whatever had taken place (whether it be a UFO incident, prison-break, weapons malfunction or lunar module prank) had been successfully contained. However, military eye-witnesses from the twin bases (Larry Warren obviously being the most prominent) gradually began to talk about a UFO incident and the case began to build up momentum - the climax being the retrieval of Halt's memo and the publishing of the News Of The World article. What's interesting to me here, is that following this chain of events backwards, if the military witnesses hadn't begun to speak up about their experiences in the first place, UFO researchers would not have got on the case, Halt's memo might not have ever been released and therefore, the RFI could have remained undetected and no need for a cover-up ever required! This has led me to a conclusion that I know is going to get me shot down in flames, but here goes...

I theorise that an ad-hoc (in response to the release of the Halt memo/publishing of the News Of The World article) type 2 cover-up of the RFI has been implemented. I propose that Larry Warren and the other military eyewitnesses DID have a close encounter with crafts (and perhaps occupant entities) of unknown origin. The authorities were quick to implement the requirements for a type 2 cover-up approach amongst the witnesses (i.e. 'if anybody asks you, all that you saw was the lighthouse beacon'), in the off-chance that other military personnel, civilians, journalists etc. questioned them in the future. The situation appeared to be contained and a type 2 cover-up within the twin bases successfully applied (i.e. a complex chain of events - multiple UFO sightings/encounters - reduced to a straight-forward explanation - lighthouse beacon/lights in the tress; therefore, ambiguity removed and no further theorising required). However, with the release of Halt's memo and the subsequent publishing of the News Of The World article, a cover-story for the public was also required. In this instance, some reverse psychology was applied - the cover story for the UFO incident was this: a UFO incident! However, not the real UFO incident, just enough of the UFO incident to retain some ambiguity!! An official memo detailing marks on the ground, lights in the sky and even metallic triangular objects, although incredible in itself, is not conclusive proof of UFO activity. Indeed, although embarrassing to the USAF, Halt's memo (which he himself suggests is a 'watered-down’ version of the true facts), contained enough ambiguity to be a useful tool in the cover-up of the true events. By not officially offering an alternative explanation, we have had to explore alternative theories based on Halt's memo (was the triangular object a lunar module? were the indentations rabbit scratchings? did Halt and his party chase the lighthouse beacon?), perhaps disregarding the 'truth' (i.e. a UFO encounter) in the process. Furthermore, the popular 'lighthouse theory' which has been adopted by many sceptics and the mainstream media (indeed, even if my theory is correct, it's still possible that the lighthouse beacon WAS mistaken for a UFO on occasions, I have no problems with this being a possibility), the complex events that could have occurred in the RFI have been successfully reduced to a case of misidentification (further reinforced by the release of the - I believe edited - Halt audio tape, which adds additional ambiguity to the situation!). In addition, as we all know, the last thing you want to use as a cover story for an incident that you wish to remain secret is a UFO encounter as this will stimulate people's interest and provoke further research; however, for the reasons that I've mentioned above, this is the genius of the use of ambiguity and reverse psychology! Finally, the last part of the equation to support this theory is the multiple testimonies of the highly-trained, military eye-witnesses. Although there have been some discrepancies regarding what they claim to have encountered (there are ALWAYS problems with the accuracy of eye-witness testimonies, whether related to UFO sightings or basic memory tests!), there is surely enough common ground to suggest that they encountered crafts of unknown origin and potentially, there occupants? I can't think of any reason why somebody like Jim Penniston for example, would describe what he encountered unless it was what he genuinely saw? Indeed, I think arguments of misidentification of the object in Jim Penniston's encounter hold very little water and in the context of the theory that I've proposed, lend further support to the idea that the RFI did indeed involve an encounter with the highly-advanced and the unknown...

May the debate begin!

Vortex

[Observer]

Blimey,
Very well written and thanks for telling us.
It brings me back to a comment made to me by an ARRS crew chief who i was friends with when he said, "you wouldn't believe me if i told you". Isn't this exactly what we are doing, not believing, because it is not within our human remit?
Obs

[IanR]

What seems unique about this case, is that as far as the general public and the media were concerned, prior to the initial News Of The World article, there was no incident!? And if there was no incident, why would you need a cover-up?

A very astute point and one that seems to have eluded the cover-up proponents. By treating the main evidence in this case - the Halt memo, the Halt tape and the witness statements - as part of a cover-up, one is left with no good evidence for an event at all.

In fact, given the circumstances in which the Halt memo, the Halt tape, the witness statements and the photograph of the landing site eventually saw light of day, I have no reason to think they were planted. I have always taken them at face value.

On the other hand, Georgina Bruni was foremost among those who did not. While she was preparing her book she publicly declared that she would demonstrate that the tape was edited, that there was a second memo from Halt to the MoD, and that Halt had been publicly lying and covering up. I leave you to decide whether she actually demonstrated any of these points.

Ian

[Observer]

I disagree to a point, in my view putting a UFO story out as a cover was the best move as they knew that it could never ever be proven even though it attracted lots of interest. Any other excuse put out would equally attract some attention but carried the risk of exposure.
Obs

[John Burroughs]

Not a plot for a movie but a fact. There was a second memo I was told that by a general from the pentagon on the phone when he called me a Luke AFB after Warren stired everthing up and Decaro and Cnn started sniffing around. also rember per Mod records Gabieral came to bentwaters after the incident and collected allot of evidence and took it to Germaney. also Verno stated a cannister was sent to Germany will that was the tape recording of the event not a movie film. The General told me i should talk to Decaro but not talk about what Warren was claming but we know that what he was stateing was not true. I had know idea what he was talking about because I did not know who Warren was or what he was stating. The reason why he called me was Decaro showed up at my house demanding a interview. I contacted PA who then notified Washington and the general called me. It was interesing because the Pa guy on the phone with the General was a Capt Grahm who was a day shift shift commander for the SP when the incident happened. I was told a memo had been released by accident to the press. He stated it was not even the memo that was offically sent to the British just one they had started to work on before they realized how big of a deal it was. He told me this when he flat out told me that when I saw the memo the dates and facts would not add up and not to comment about about that just gave a brief statement out of uniform and do not comment on Warren story because we all knew it was not true . He also was pushing me hard on if in fact I was behind what was going on with the press being contacted. I found out from Decaro why at first PA at Bentwaters used my name as the one behind the story and even thr Pentagon PA said the same. The reason why everybody was comming after me was because of that plus as I found out later Halt at the very beginning told somebody that I was on top of a craft and then had lived out in the forrest for days afterwards.

[AdrianF]

I was told a memo had been released by accident to the press. He stated it was not even the memo that was offically sent to the British just one they had started to work on before they realized how big of a deal it was.

John

Are you saying that the Halt memo that we all know, was just a draft memo and that the later official ( from higher up? ) memo is still out there somewhere?

The General told me i should talk to Decaro but not talk about what Warren was claming but we know that what he was stateing was not true.

Why do you think the general didn't just ask you to tell Chuck DeCaro to F*** off? Must have been pretty daunting.

Adrian

[John Burroughs]

Those were his words about the memo and yes I would say that was not the offical memo sent to the British how would they have know everthing they stated they knew to include Gabriel vist. It sounded like they had been caught with there pants down and were not sure what to do. From what I was told Decaro and Cnn had permission to look into this and they didnot want to make it look like they were hiding witness. But right after this broke I got orders for Korea which was one of the hardest places for the press to get acees to at the time. Halt also got sent to Korea he was at Kunson and I was at Osan....

[daveclarke]

Hello John -
and greetings to the list (this is my first post):
just to say I find the idea of a 2nd Halt memo covered up by the MoD a little hard to believe.
I've interviewed both Don Moreland, the RAF liason officer, and the MoD desk officer at the time of the incident, Simon Weeden, who was DS8c (and now a vicar!)
It was Moreland, remember, who asked Halt to write his memo to the MoD after he returned to the base following his Christmas hols.
It was Moreland who added the cover-note and sent it off to Weeden at MoD. This was how things were done, it was the etiquette of communications between the twin base and Whitehall.
If Halt had produced any further memos Moreland and Weeden would have known about it. Weeden didn't ask for any follow up, or even thought it was worth interviewing Halt; neither did Jack Badcock, the Wing Co at RAF Ops (GE), who wrote the internal memo that mentions General Gabriel's visit.
If there was a second memo, how come neither Moreland (the base liaison officer) or Weeden, who dealt with all the MoD papers on the incident, don't know anything about it?

[John Burroughs]

Who said Halt sent the memo. The fact that the Mod looked at the way they did. The fact that General Gabriel came down and collected information per the Mod documents that were released. The was not the only document that went out. I was told on the phone that the memo that was realesed was not a true account of invents and was only drafted before they realized how serious the event was. The fact that a plane came in on Sunday night and did what ever they did all of the information the Mod had Gabriel visit, what I was told and Gen Williams making a statement on out of the blue that he would have nevered cleared that document for release do you really beleive that was the only offical exchange the US and Mod had.

[Observer]

Hi Dave and welcome.
The whole business of the memo, who wrote it, why, and when and who it was sent to is extremely suspect.
Proper channels would have been firstly from Halt to USAF HQ Germany with a CC to the MOD. That is how we in the RAF would have done it. Halt would have no official right to by pass USAF HQ without firstly getting their OK. The 2 week delay is probably more to do with getting the story OK'd by his bosses first before issue.

Protocols were certainly not adhered to in this case

Obs

[daveclarke]

Hi -
No of course I don't believe this was the only communication between MoD and USAF, but I was under the impression you were suggesting there was a 2nd Halt memo sent by Halt, which had been somehow concealed by MoD.
It's clear from the contents of the MoD file that there *were* other communications, but these were probably by telephone or signal (Badcock & the RAF being able to talk to their opposite numbers in the 3rd AF at Mildenhall without producing a paper trail in the DS8 files).
Either way, whatever USAF said to MoD and vice versa, at the end of the day MoD still didn't think it was worth sending someone to investigate further.
The recent release of MoD papers at the TNA included a briefing from Lord Trefgarne to Lord Hill-Norton, dated 1985,
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/trefgarne.htm
which contains the following very interesting line:
“Our own view also was that no additional action was required...We believe that the fact that Col. Halt did not report these occurrences to MoD for almost two weeks after the event, together with the relatively low-key manner in which he handled the matter, are indicative of the degree of importance in defence terms which should be attached to the incident.”
This raises questions about the actual content of these alleged secret 2nd memos; if they contained sensational details not included in Halt's original memo, then why didn't Trefgarne see them?
And, as Trefgarne says, if this incident was such a big deal why did Halt wait 2 weeks to report it to the RAF liaison officer?

[daveclarke]

Observer wrote:

>Proper channels would have been firstly from Halt to USAF HQ Germany with a CC to the MOD.t

But if Halt did notify USAF HQ Germany he did not cc MoD. If so it would be part of the paper trail. It isn't. If it was then MoD are lying when they say the first they heard about it was when Moreland's memo to DS8 arrived at Whitehall on 13 Jan 1981. If they are lying they are taking a big risk, why?

>Protocols were certainly not adhered to in this case

But according to Moreland, protocols were adhered to, in that he asked Halt to write a memo to MoD because he thought MoD should know about it. If Halt was aware that MoD already knew about it, why would he have not mentioned this to Moreland and written a memo about something he knew the MoD already knew about?

It just dosen't make any sense - like much of the so-called evidence about this incident!