• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Questions About CIA Admiting 'It Was Us' in 2014

Jenny Chan

Skilled Investigator
First post, I did a search and could not find discussion, so please be nice, but this has been nagging me for years:

The CIA tweeted in 2014 a 1998 document indicating that flying saucer sightings were actually U-2 flights from 1954 to 1974.

It is pretty tragic that the CIA would be proud to tweet that "It Was Us" when, if it really was, they were responsible for wasted government funds for allowing the Air Force/Project Blue Book/local police and other government officials to investigate and sometimes even risk their lives chasing these objects, not to mention blatantly lying to the public.

My instincts tell me that the CIA's claim just does not hold up to scrutiny (although I assume at least some UFO reports were of U-2s or other experimental aircraft, balloons, or drones) but was wondering what the "ufological" criticisms are of this document. What is its legacy in 2018?

The one to me right off the bat is that it does not explain the entire range of UFO phenomena starting with 1940s sightings. The nature of many Blue Book sightings were that these glowing objects moved like incredibly high speed insects or remote controlled devices. In other words, I'm sure if a pilot got "close" to one, he would have seen if it was a spy-plane.
 

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
Welcome to the forums Jenny! No one I know of in the field accepted this claim by the CIA as being accurate. Maybe on occasion some high flying airline pilots wondered what could be traveling high above them, but this 'one-size-fits-all'explanation is ludicrous and was a feeble attempt to put spin on the subject. Where are you located and what brought you here?
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
First post, I did a search and could not find discussion, so please be nice, but this has been nagging me for years:

The CIA tweeted in 2014 a 1998 document indicating that flying saucer sightings were actually U-2 flights from 1954 to 1974.

It is pretty tragic that the CIA would be proud to tweet that "It Was Us" when, if it really was, they were responsible for wasted government funds for allowing the Air Force/Project Blue Book/local police and other government officials to investigate and sometimes even risk their lives chasing these objects, not to mention blatantly lying to the public.

My instincts tell me that the CIA's claim just does not hold up to scrutiny (although I assume at least some UFO reports were of U-2s or other experimental aircraft, balloons, or drones) but was wondering what the "ufological" criticisms are of this document. What is its legacy in 2018?

The one to me right off the bat is that it does not explain the entire range of UFO phenomena starting with 1940s sightings. The nature of many Blue Book sightings were that these glowing objects moved like incredibly high speed insects or remote controlled devices. In other words, I'm sure if a pilot got "close" to one, he would have seen if it was a spy-plane.

There have been other admissions that high-tech aircraft like the SR-71 have been responsible for a number of UFO reports, particularly unexplained radar tracks. I imagine the U2 might have generated some similar reports. But I completely agree that if anyone got an optical fix on either aircraft, they would have been immediately identified as aircraft. I also appreciate your comment about risking the lives of personnel chasing such objects. The Mantell case for example was written off as a Skyhook balloon, which was a Top Secret project at the time. However your point now makes me question that conclusion. If Ruppelt knew about it, and says the Air Force was tracking them, why would the Air Force scramble aircraft to intercept them? One would think that the base commanders would also have Top Secret clearance and a need to know in order to track them. Hmm. Good first post and welcome to the forum !
 

Jenny Chan

Skilled Investigator
Thanks, guys.

My mind really gets blown that the CIA is basically claiming Ruppelt and others did not have full access.


I am in South Florida.
I found Paracast two years ago while looking for Jerome Clark interviews. I got his UFO encyclopedias back in the day. I was into Loren Coleman as well. Was hooked on monsters and UFOs since I was a kid.
 

Top