Establishing Context

Before proceeding with my analysis, it’s crucial to address several key points. The notes lack significance without the appropriate context. Thus, we need to establish a suitable framework for analyzing the data with minimal bias or preconceived notions.

To begin, we should examine who attended the meeting and explore their backgrounds, particularly at the time, while considering the overall stance on UFOs and related phenomena. This will help us build a clearer context surrounding the participants and their motivations. Additionally, we must review the stated objectives and purposes of the gathering before scrutinizing Shannon's personal notes.

Attendees of the Meeting:

• Oke Shannon — LANL — Nuclear physicist
• Bill Wilkinson — CIA/OIA? — Background unknown
• (First name omitted) McConnell — NSA — Background unknown
• John Alexander — AMC/USA? — Possibly John B. Alexander, known for research on directed energy weapons and paranormal studies, holding a sociology degree and a PhD in education, who studied neurolinguistic programming (NLP) under the First Earth Battalion. He later identified himself as the organizer of this theoretical physics group in his 2011 book [here](https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a6488/colonel-john-alexander-plants-ufo-doubts-in-new-book/).
• Bert Stubblebine — BDM — Former INSCOM officer with a master's in chemical engineering, key supporter of Project Stargate. He served as VP of BDM Corporation, a tech services company founded in 1959, acquired by Ford Aerospace in 1988.
• Hal Puthoff — Former NSA — PhD physicist, developer of tunable lasers, and initiator of the remote viewing program, which evolved into Project Stargate.
• Jack Huock — Boeing engineer with a degree in aerospace engineering, known for hosting psychic parties.
• Ed Speakman — INSCOM — Physics instructor in the 1930s, worked with Philco and the Naval Research Lab in the 1940s, and was vice chairman of the DOD's research and development board from 1949-52.
• Bill Souder — McDonnell Douglas aerospace corp
• Bob Wood — McDonnell Douglas aerospace corp
• (Name omitted) — BDM
• Jake Stewart — USDRE? — Background unknown
• Ralph Freeman — Background unknown
• Ron Blackburn — Lockheed (cal co?) [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund)
• Milt Janzen — Lockheed
• Don Keuble? — Lockheed

Setting Assumptions

That’s quite a bit to process. It’s important to consider the backgrounds of the attendees. Before diving into the content for analysis, I propose some assumptions. Notably, the backgrounds of all known attendees relate to either scientific or intelligence fields, often with ties to psychic phenomena like remote viewing. I suggest we set aside the psychic elements for now.

Why is this important? I theorize that remote viewing may serve as a cover for intelligence operations. This isn’t a dismissal of psychic research; it logically follows that remote viewing could obscure intelligence-sharing methods, safeguarding sources and methods. For instance, if a Soviet aircraft crashes and we aim to retrieve it without revealing our insider, we might claim the information came from a psychic source. This scenario has reportedly occurred, as shared by Jimmy Carter. How do psychics obtain their information? The answer lies in a blend of subliminal messaging, suggestion, and techniques akin to neurolinguistic programming (NLP). Illusionist Darren Brown provides a notable example of this kind of manipulation.

This theory isn’t aimed at debunking remote viewing. Instead, it posits that even if elements of it are valid, it could effectively serve as a cover. Perhaps the outcomes slightly above the statistical baseline were inflated by intentional leaks. In this situation, remote viewers may remain unaware of their role in the leak. If Puthoff safeguards his sources, he effectively establishes a human cryptography system. Given Puthoff’s former NSA affiliation and the intelligence backgrounds of others involved in this program, this explanation appears rational. If one believes remote viewing lacks merit, it’s worth considering this theory to explain a program that has persisted for decades and consumed significant resources. It seems more plausible than attributing it to fraud or incompetence.

By applying this theory as a filter and reevaluating the list of attendees, we can eliminate the psychic and remote viewing aspects, leaving us with individuals primarily rooted in scientific or intelligence backgrounds, particularly those linked to espionage and psychological operations (psyops). INSCOM stands out as particularly noteworthy.

This filter can also work in reverse, allowing us to isolate attendees associated with psychic phenomena to trace the development of related mythology. For example, the narrative surrounding extraterrestrial crafts can be tracked from the Wilson memo, through the MJ-12 documents, back to the Roswell lore, and further to the Philadelphia Experiment mythology. This trajectory suggests a long-standing psyop initiative, where Morris K. Jessup may have been “Paul Bennewitz’ed”—driven to madness and eventual suicide by malicious actors—following the release of his 1955 book, The Case for the UFO, during Project Blue Book when the Air Force sought to convince the public that UFOs were fictitious.

I apologize for the digression, but it's crucial to recognize that psyops, like the ones discussed, have been proven real and pose significant issues. Such operations not only destroy lives but also fuel rampant conspiracy theories and erode public trust in government and institutions, undermining societal cohesion and contributing to widespread mental health issues. I once heard someone say, “Either UFOs are genuine, or we have a serious mental health crisis,” and I contend it’s both: UFOs are real, and we face a mental health crisis, partly due to extensive gaslighting.

Another consideration is that the UFO phenomenon can also function as a cover for intelligence operations, similar to remote viewing. This intersection can involve counterintelligence measures and infiltration by foreign adversaries. Therefore, not all peculiar occurrences in ufology stem from the US government, though this is not meant to excuse the government's accountability. This underscores the need for greater transparency from the US government regarding the UFO/UAP issue, as it has become a significant factor in undermining the institutions and public trust it is meant to protect.

When analyzing this meeting, we must acknowledge that the attendees and the context could indicate the gathering served as a façade for an intelligence operation. The specific discussions that took place remain unknown based on these notes.

The Analysis

We should commence our analysis with the typed document outlining the introduction, objectives, and purpose. I will not examine every note, but rather highlight those I find particularly noteworthy. For further reference, a link to all the notes is provided at the top.

The objectives indicate they are investigating evidence to determine if further study is warranted and whether enough evidence exists to develop a research and development program. If so, they must consider what the primary focus should be. This phrasing is intriguing, as it may imply they are particularly interested in uncovering the propulsion mechanisms behind alleged sightings.

The logical interpretation of this document suggests they have identified potentially credible evidence of unidentified crafts they wish to analyze for credibility and explore how to "reverse engineer" (if credible), even if only theoretically. They also express a desire to gather additional evidence if justified. While this appears exploratory, the attendees' backgrounds, which include high-level security clearances and scientific or espionage expertise, imply that the cases they highlighted warrant attention and credibility.

The cases listed include:

• Cash-Landrum
• Iran F4
• Woodbridge
• Brazilian crash — metal
• Mike Neery — photos
• Paul T — first-hand photos

I may delve deeper into these cases in a future post. Notably, the Brazilian metal has garnered attention, as it’s widely understood among those following these developments that it likely refers to the magnesium sample reported by Dr. Gary Nolan, which exhibited anomalous isotopic ratios and awaits confirmation through independent analysis.

They seem to acknowledge the deficiencies in Blue Book’s assessments, noting that this working group contradicts that narrative.

The discussion also includes the Tunguska event, an intriguing occurrence from 1908 identified as a 12-megaton explosion in Russia. Although commonly attributed to a meteor that detonated above the ground, I recall reading in an introduction to one of Walter Sullivan’s books that the event remains mysterious, illustrating our incomplete understanding of certain physical phenomena.

A particular chart draws my interest, especially the column labeled "samples," which includes metal, soil, and "red goo." While the magnesium sample and soil samples with radiation have been noted, the nature of the red goo remains unclear. I recall discussions by Joseph Farrell about a rumored red mercury combined with wax used to power the Die Glocke/Nazi Bell, though I currently struggle to find credible sources on that topic.

If you appreciate my insights, consider following me on Medium.