by Michael E. Salla, PhD
from Exopolitics Website
I recently finished reading Greg Bishop's book on Paul Bennewitz and was pleasantly surprised to read about one UFO researcher's attempt to find the truth about what happened to Bennewitz and the extraterrestrial information he allegedly discovered in the period from 1978 to 1986.
Bishop researches the Bennewitz saga by conducting a number of interviews with individuals who directly knew and worked with Bennewitz during the period in question.
...according to Bishop, are the individual keys to
unlocking the mystery behind the Bennewitz saga.
Alert to the possibility of extraterrestrial involvement through the recent spate of cattle mutilations in the area that he had been researching, Bennewitz was to embark on a journey where he ultimately claimed that extraterrestrials had established an underground base in the area, and were showing a suspicious interest in US military facilities in the Manzano nuclear facility.
Bishop relates how Bennewitz in
November 1980 went through the process of passing on his
information, the United States Air Force and how they took his views
seriously. Too seriously for Bennewitz's ultimate well being in
The goal, according to Bishop, was to so destabilize Bennewitz that he would ultimately be unable to separate the truth from the falsehoods being directed towards him and ultimately discredit himself. This apparently happened with veteran UFO researchers deserting Bennewitz and Bennewitz himself finally succumbing to a complete nervous breakdown in 1986.
saga, Bishop clarifies the role of key individuals such as Moore and
Doty in feeding Bennewitz the disinformation that ultimately led to
his discrediting and abandonment by the UFO community. Both Doty and
Moore befriended Bennewitz, and allegedly used this friendship to
lead Bennewitz astray from whatever it was he had discovered in his
Bishop's point is that much of modern Ufology has been
contaminated by the disinformation fed to Bennewitz, and discerning
'modern' researchers need to weed out the disinformation
regurgitated by less astute 'researchers' that was originally
spawned through Bennewitz. Bishop's thesis is certainly ambitious so
the reasonable question to ask is, "is Bishop correct?"
Bishop certainly concludes the former from his interviews with Doty and Moore, and curiously doesn't consider the latter possibility as seriously worth considering.
If Bennewitz was the subject of a disinformation campaign, as most agree was indeed the case, then should one find credible the testimony of individuals directly participating in such a campaign?
Bishop paints a sympathetic picture of Moore as someone who unintentionally overstepped the bounds of sensible research principles and cooperated with the 'wrong side' so to speak. The same cannot be said for Richard Doty who was a professional in AFOSI and was a direct part of the campaign to discredit Bennewitz.
seems too eager to accept Doty's and Moore's' versions of events
that the information Bennewitz claimed concerning underground
extraterrestrial bases and captive humans was in fact disinformation
fed to Bennewitz.
As for William Moore, it is also dubious to accept his version of events where he volunteered to participate in a campaign to discredit Bennewitz in order to learn about how AFOSI interfered with UFO research. If Moore choose to believe Doty and Moore's other AFOSI handlers that Bennewitz was being fed disinformation, then it's not surprising that Moore would later contend that Bennewitz had been fed disinformation.
Put simply, Bishop places too much faith in a professional in discrediting UFO witnesses/researchers, and a UFO researcher who naively believed he could benefit by being a part of the military-intelligence game.
Bishop assumes that Bennewitz's claims
were a result of the disinformation being fed to him, and doesn't
seriously consider that Bennewitz's central claims were accurate and
that rumors of disinformation were used to discredit the genuine
information Bennewitz was disseminating.
Bennewitz's efforts to gain information from Myrna Hansen through the regressive hypnosis by Leo Sprinkle are depicted in terms of an increasingly neurotic Bennewitz who was using Hansen to feed his increasing paranoia about extraterrestrial bases and abducted humans.
What Bishop fails to discuss is Bennewitz's expertise in electronic transmissions and his alleged success in discovering the radio frequency of the extraterrestrial implants inserted into Hansen.
This kind of electronic interception device was a specialty area for Bennewitz and he actually held a number of patents in the area of electronic transmissions.
This alone may explain why AFOSI was interested in Bennewitz's work since the interception and deciphering of electronic transmissions between a 'human abductee' and the extraterrestrial abductors would clearly have national security significance.
Bishop totally ignores such a possibility and instead chooses to promote the idea that Bennewitz was paranoid in his dealing with Hansen and that this was a product of the disinformation being fed to him.
However, since Bennewitz's
work with Hansen began in May 1980, six months before he notified AFOSI of his conclusions in November, it's a stretch for Bishop to
argue that Bennewitz's claims about extraterrestrials having
underground bases with captured humans was a product of
disinformation. Bennewitz's views were already formed well before
AFOSI were notified of Bennewitz's concerns, and presumably began their campaign of discrediting Bennewitz.
First was Bob Lazar who claims to have read a briefing document at the S4 facility about an underground base in 1979 where there was a firefight between extraterrestrials and elite security forces.
Another whistleblower is Phil Schneider who went on the lecture tour in 1995 claiming to have worked in the underground construction of classified military bases, and had been directly involved in a military altercation at Dulce between extraterrestrials and elite security forces in 1979. Schneider was found dead in his apartment in January 1996 in what some claim were circumstances that resembled a contract killing.
Another whistleblower is Daniel Burisch who claims to have been taken to Dulce and heard the cries of captive humans. Burisch was allegedly threatened with the prospect of joining the captive humans if he did not participate in a highly unethical retro-virus program.
Yet another whistleblower is Michael Wolf who claimed that he worked at Dulce and regularly met with extraterrestrials working with there under agreements with clandestine government authorities.
Arguably the most controversial whistleblower is a former allegedly security guard at Dulce, Thomas Castello, who claims in great details the alleged treatment received by captive humans by extraterrestrials at Dulce and also claims to have participated in the 1979 firefight.
Despite his extraordinary claims, Bill Hamilton researched Castello's claims and found him plausible (for more analysis of
whistleblower testimonies concerning Dulce, see
The Dulce Report).
These whistleblowers allegedly had direct experience with evidence validating Bennewitz's claim of an underground extraterrestrial base at Dulce suggests that there is some merit to Bennewitz's claims. Unfortunately, Bishop doesn't examine any of these whistleblower claims and makes what appears to be the unfortunate assumption that they are not worth investigating.
This kind of routine dismissal of whistleblower testimony should not be condoned and is really impermissible for anyone wanting to conduct a balanced investigation of a major event in UFO history such as the Bennewitz case. The kind of difficulties many whistleblowers have in validating their credentials or testimony should not be used as an excuse to dismiss their claims as regularly done by veteran UFO researchers.
approach used by veteran UFO researchers is inappropriate as I have
This stretches the bounds of credibility since I have heard of no other case where a significant research grant will be awarded to a UFO researcher with the primary purpose of disinforming him while getting more information on the precise nature and conclusions of his research.
What is more likely is that Bennewitz had developed the means for intercepting electronic transmissions that were of great interest to the Air Force.
These transmissions may have been
little more that communications used in a classified project as
Bishop suggests; or may have been more exotic in terms of intercepted extraterrestrial communications which is what Bennewitz
believed. It is clear that Bennewitz had discovered something with
his electronic interceptions and his methods where the subject of
close observation by the USAF.
As a loyal citizen, it's hard to imagine that Bennewitz would have done anything other than simply comply. It's more plausible that he received his grant because the Air Force wanted to learn more about what the alleged extraterrestrials were up to as Bennewitz was indeed claiming.
It appears that while Bennewitz was passing on information to the USAF, he was simultaneously the recipient of an intense campaign to discredit him by claiming he was ingenuously accepting disinformation passed to him. To accept the word of those playing a direct role in discrediting Bennewitz's primary claims concerning underground extraterrestrial bases and captive humans as disinformation appears to be a dubious way of assessing the validity of Bennewitz's claims.
Yet this is what Bishop does in his book.
Yet from the very first chapter of his book, Bishop has the clear goal of demonstrating that Bennewitz was the victim of a disinformation campaign and that Bennewitz's claims were too laden with disinformation to be of any service to the UFO community other than a warning of how researchers can be led astray.
Bishop's citation of sources and interviews are all geared to demonstrate the truth of his thesis that the UFO community was right to dismiss the bulk of Bennewitz's extravagant claims.
Unfortunately, Bishop doesn't seriously entertain the idea that Bennewitz was possibly correct, even in part, in his most extravagant claims concerning underground extraterrestrial bases with captive humans.
Bishop assumes that such claims were precisely the disinformation
fed to him, when it may have been that rumors of disinformation were
generated towards Bennewitz to discredit his research findings about
an underground extraterrestrial base at Dulce. It's Bishop's a
priori dismissal of the possibility the Bennewitz could have been
correct is what most weakens his book as an impartial research study
of a key historical figure in UFO research.
Simply accepting Doty's and Moore's testimony that Bennewitz believed disinformation fed to him is to do a disservice to the memory of Bennewitz who was an astute observer of the UFO phenomenon and who had valid observations to make regardless of the rumors of disinformation leveled against him.
Bennewitz was ultimately discredited by a clever disinformation campaign.
However, it was
rumors of him ingenuously spreading disinformation that were more
damaging to his reputation, than his actually using the information
received by AFOSI agents and assets to formulate his views about
what was really occurring in underground facilities in New Mexico.