by Michael E. Salla, PhD
Pre-publication version of article published in

Nexus Magazine, vol 13:2 (Feb-March 2006): 55-60

from Exopolitics Website



In one of its first major policy changes after coming into power in January 2001, the Bush administration signaled its intent to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty with Russia. The ABM Treaty had been intended to prevent the deployment of weapons in space and enjoyed major international support since its ratification in 1972 by the Nixon administration.


In a May 2001 speech, President Bush argued that the 30 year old ABM Treaty was outdated and that the U.S. must formally move beyond its constraints to deal with new security threats:

We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today’s world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today’s threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace.1

The Bush administration gave its formal notice to withdraw on December 13, 2001, and promptly withdrew six months later.


The Bush administration thus formally embarked on realizing some of the goals of the Strategic Defense Initiative that had first been promoted by the Reagan administration in March 1983. Reagan had envisaged the development of space based intercept systems that could be used to destroy large scale ballistic missile attacks on the United States.


Reagan’s SDI floundered as the Cold War wound down and the Democrat controlled U.S. Congress aimed to use the anticipated ‘peace dividend’ to improve social programs. Furthermore, many prominent scientists argued against the cost of developing SDI’s futuristic weapons systems.


In July 1999, the Clinton Administration passed the National Missile Defense Act calling for a more limited anti-ballistic missile system:

It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.2

The Bush administration quickly moved to formally deploying an antiballistic missile system as part of the National Missile Defense Program.

In May 2005, the US Air Force formally requested permission from the Bush administration for a national security directive so that it could “secure space to protect the nation from attack”. The Air Force request moves the Bush Administration closer to approving the weaponization of space and sparking an arms race in space with the US major strategic competitors, Russia and China.


These developments towards deploying weapons in space received a surprising objection when a former Canadian Defense Minister addressed a UFO Conference in Toronto.


He linked the deployment of space weapons not to possible ballistic missile attacks by rogue nations or terrorist groups, but as a means of targeting UFOs that were piloted by extraterrestrial visitors.


Paul Hellyer and Opposition to the Weaponization of Space

On September 25, 2005, the Honorable Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian Minister for National Defense gave a speech in Toronto addressing the weaponization of space.3 For the 82 year old Hellyer, his speech reaffirmed his long standing opposition to any governmental efforts to deploy weapons in Space.


While Defense Minister in the Lester Pearson administration from 1963-67, Hellyer had officially rebuffed initiatives from the Johnson administration to approve an anti-ballistic missile defense system.


In a 2003 article he wrote:

“It is almost 40 years since U.S. secretary of defense Robert McNamara asked me if Canada would be interested in helping develop an anti-ballistic missile defense for North America. I was able to say, “Thanks, but no thanks,” which was the position of the Pearson government and one that I fully endorsed.”4

During his 2005 speech, Hellyer also addressed the UFO phenomenon and described his time as Minister for Defense where the occasional UFO sighting report crossed his desk.


He claims to never have had time for what he considered to be a “flight of fancy”, but nevertheless retained an interest in the UFO phenomenon. While Minister for Defense, he was guest of honor at the opening of the world’s first UFO landing pad at Alberta, Canada in 1967. He thought it an innovative idea from a progressive Canadian community willing to pay for his helicopter ride, but did not give much thought to UFOs as having serious policy implications.

Hellyer’s position on UFOs dramatically changed after watching the late Peter Jennings documentary special, “Seeing is Believing” in February 2005. Hellyer decided to read a book that had been idly sitting on his book shelf for two years.


Philip Corso’s, The Day After Roswell, sparked intense interest for Hellyer in terms of its policy implications, and Corso distinguished service in the U.S. Army and the Eisenhower administration.


Corso who reached the rank of Lt Colonel, named real people, institutions and events in his book that could be checked. Intrigued by the policy implications, Hellyer decided to confirm whether Corso’s book was real or a “work of fiction”. He contacted a retired United States Air Force General and spoke to him directly to verify Corso’s claims. The unnamed General simply said: “every word is true and more”. 5


Hellyer then proceeded to discuss the “and more …” with the general and claimed he was told remarkable things concerning UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis that interplanetary visitors have been here since at least 1947. Hellyer then privately asked a number of ‘officials’, some occupying senior positions, about Corso, and again received confirmation that Corso’s claims were accurate.6 Finally convinced that the UFO phenomenon was real Hellyer decided to come forward and publicly speak about some of the “most profoundly important policy questions that must be addressed.”

Among the profound policy questions raised by Hellyer was the designation by the U.S. military of visiting extraterrestrials as an ‘enemy’.

  • According to Hellyer, this had led to the development of “laser and particle guns to the point that they can be used against the visitors from space.”

  • It is this targeting of visiting extraterrestrials that concerns Hellyer, and he asks “is it wise to spend so much time and money to build weapon systems to rid the skies of alien visitors?”

  • Hellyer poignantly raises the key policy question: “Are they really enemies or merely legitimate explorers from afar?”

  • Hellyer’s question raises profound importance in understanding the relationship between visiting extraterrestrial civilizations and the recent effort to deploy weapons in space.

Significantly, Hellyer’s stated position on deploying weapons in Space and opposition to the possible military targeting of extraterrestrials is in stark contrast to the man who initially convinced him of the reality of extraterrestrial visitors: Lt. Col. Philip Corso.



Colonel Philip Corso’s Support for the Strategic Defense Initiative & Weaponization of Space

In his book, The Day After Roswell, co-authored with William Birnes, retired Lt. Col. Philip Corso declared that extraterrestrials were abducting civilians, violating U.S. airspace, and destroying aircraft sent to intercept them.


Corso viewed the extraterrestrials as a direct threat to U.S national security and declared:

“For over fifty years, now, the war against UFOs has continued as we tried to defend ourselves against their intrusions.” 7

Elsewhere in the Day After Roswell, Corso describes the national security threat posed by UFOs and the need for a military weaponization program to target and shoot down UFOs conducting such violations. He specifically championed President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).


Corso believed that SDI was the appropriate response to extraterrestrial intrusions, and that the US and USSR both knew what SDI’s true purpose was:

We [US & USSR] both knew who the real targets of SDI were… It was the UFOs, alien spacecraft thinking themselves invulnerable and invisible as they soared around the edges of our atmosphere, swooping down at will to destroy our communications with EMP bursts, buzz our spacecraft, colonize our lunar surface, mutilate cattle in their own horrendous biological experiments, and even abduct human beings for their medical tests and hybridization of the species. And what was worse we had to let them do it because we had no weapons to defend ourselves.8

A number of UFO researchers have claimed that these bellicose statements towards extraterrestrial visitors were introduced by Corso’s co-author William Birnes, and that Corso was not as anti-extraterrestrial as The Day After Roswell suggests.


That is not accurate as a reading of Col Corso’s original notes make clear. His original notes were published in Italy and contain many similar statements revealing the depth of Corso’s animosity towards visiting extraterrestrials.9


For example, in terms of violating U.S. air space, Corso wrote:

“They have violated our air space with impunity and even landed on our territory. Whether intentional or not, they have performed hostile acts. Our citizens have been abducted and killed.”10

Corso went on to fully describe the nature of the interaction between extraterrestrial visitors and the general population:

“the aliens have shown a callous indifference concerning their victims. Their behavior has been insidious and it appears they might be using our earth and manipulating earth life. Skeptics will excuse them that possibly they are benevolent and want to help, however, there is no evidence they have healed anyone or alleviated human ailments. On the other hand, they have caused pain, suffering and even death.”11

Corso here reveals the depth of his animosity towards extraterrestrials and the information he had received on their intrusive activities. His statements reveal that he had a skeptical view of the ‘benevolence’ of visiting extraterrestrials.


Corso endorsed comments such as General Douglas Macarthur’s claim in 1955 that the,

“nations of the world will have to unite, for the next war will be an interplanetary war.”

In terms of cooperation between the US and Russia (former USSR) to deal with the extraterrestrials, Corso wrote:

“The U.S. and USSR are aligning their space programs against a common enemy.”12

Consequently, it can be concluded that there is no ambiguity in Corso’s belief that extraterrestrials are a genuine threat to US. national security and that weaponization of space was an urgent policy priority to deal with the “extraterrestrial enemy”. If alive today, Corso would no doubt be a strong supporter of the current U.S Air Force plans to weaponize space, and build a global defense shield that could target extraterrestrial visitors.


In short, Corso has consistently demonstrated strong support for military solutions to the presence of visiting extraterrestrials that in his view were performing abductions and other ‘intrusive activities’ that posed a direct threat to U.S. national security.


Do Extraterrestrials Pose a National Security & Global Threat?

The question that can now be raised is whether extraterrestrials do genuinely pose a national security threat to the U.S. or the earth more generally.


This question is made very complex by the amount of conflicting data on the extraterrestrial presence from a variety of whistleblower and witness sources whose testimony is more difficult to verify when compared to the case of the highly decorated Corso.


Answering such a policy question first requires that one understand the nature of the “national security threat” posed by extraterrestrials. Second, one needs to identify any groups of extraterrestrials that may be performing intrusive actions that fall into the category of ‘threat’.


Finally, one has to identify extraterrestrials performing non-intrusive activities that do not appear to be a threat to the national security of the U.S. or other countries. There have been many rumors that the U.S. has entered into agreements with extraterrestrial races. For example, there is considerable circumstantial and testimonial evidence pointing to President Eisenhower being actively involved in meeting with and reaching agreements with extraterrestrial races.13


Col Corso, who served in the Eisenhower administration, alludes to such agreements in various passages in the Day After Roswell.

For example, he wrote:

“We had negotiated a kind of surrender with them [extraterrestrials] as long as we couldn’t fight them. They dictated the terms because they knew what we most feared was disclosure.”14

There have been an ever growing number of alleged whistleblowers describing the various agreements reached with extraterrestrials that they saw direct evidence of during their participation in projects or assignments with the highest possible security classifications.


These agreements allegedly involved the exchange of technology or information by extraterrestrials in exchange for the right to establish bases on U.S. territory. The existence of such bases is explicitly revealed by Corso in his private notes.


After describing the various intrusive activities performed by the extraterrestrials, Corso went on to make the following startling claim:

“The above are acts of war which we would not tolerate from any worldly source. It also appears they do not tolerate any such acts on our parts on their bases.”15

The implication here is that the extraterrestrials have bases, likely on U.S. territory as alleged by other whistleblowers, and the U.S. government was powerless to fully monitor these bases.

Extraterrestrials that have entered into these agreements or ‘negotiated surrender’ as Corso claims; have performed activities in the form of abductions, genetic experiments and aerial activities that lead to great suspicion as to their ultimate agenda. Corso repeatedly pointed out that such intrusive actions amounted to an act of war and justified a concerted military response by U.S. authorities.


It needs to be pointed out that prior to these alleged agreements, most human-extraterrestrial interactions appeared to be of the benevolent ‘space brother’ category that emerged in the 1950’s.16 Individual ‘contactees’ claimed to have been exposed to a variety of positive extraterrestrial experiences that inspired a rapid growth in public interest in the benevolent ‘space brothers’.


There is reason to believe that the abduction phenomenon that emerged into the public consciousness with the famous Betty and Barney Hill case in 1961 was a direct result of alleged agreements reached with extraterrestrials.


That is not to say that negative experiences with extraterrestrials or ‘abductions’ didn’t happen before the agreements, but that the agreements enabled these abductions to increase at a rate which went far beyond whatever government authorities originally approved.



The Secret Government, MJ-12 & Classified Agreements with Extraterrestrials

The government authority that would be responsible for making the alleged covert agreements is generally known by UFO researchers as Majestic-12 or MJ-12 Group.


Documentary evidence for the existence of such a secret organization emerged in 1987 with the discovery of a memo from President Eisenhower’s Special Assistant, Robert Cutler, to General Nathan Twining.


The memo referred to a schedule meeting for July 16, 1954 and referred to the “MJ-12 Special Studies Project”.



The above memo was found in the national archives and has been shown to be genuine.17 In another document ‘leaked’ to UFO researchers and known as the Eisenhower Briefing Document, Majestic-12 is described as having operational control of the UFO phenomenon:

Operation Majestic-12 is a Top Secret Research and Development/Intelligence operation responsible directly and only to the President of the United States.

Operations of the project are carried out under control of the Majestic-12 (Majic-12) Group which was established by special classified executive order of President Truman on 24 September, 1947.18

The Briefing Document remains controversial, but exhaustive archival analysis by researchers strongly point to its authenticity.19

The Briefing Document listed 12 prominent military officials and national security experts as its members among whom included Gordon Gray who occupied a number of senior defense positions including Secretary to the Army for President Truman from 1949-1950. He was later President Eisenhower’s Special Assistant for National Security (1958-61).


Significantly, Gray was appointed by President Truman to be the first director of the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) established in 1951 and declared to be part of the CIA. In 1953, the PSB was replaced by the more powerful Operations Coordinating Board (OCB). It’s worth going into detail of the history and activities of both these organizations since they are related to management of the UFO phenomenon.


Furthermore, each organization involved Col Corso, a military intelligence specialist, in various covert operations while serving in the Eisenhower administration. It is likely that service on these Boards gave Corso the background information that formed his developed views on extraterrestrials and support for the weaponization of Space.

The Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) was created “under the NSC to coordinate government-wide psychological warfare strategy”. 20


The PSB was formally succeeded by the more powerful Operations Coordinating Board established by Executive Order 10483 on September 2, 1953 with the following charter:

...the Operations Coordinating Board shall (1) Whenever the President shall hereafter so direct, advise the agencies concerned as to... the execution of each security action or project so that it shall make its full contribution to the attainment of national security objective views and to the particular climate of opinion the United States is seeking to achieve in the world...

Initially, the OCB was based at the State Department and while formally authorized to report to the National Security Council (NSC) and implement NSC decisions, it was formally independent from the NSC. On February 25, 1957, Executive Order 10700 formally incorporated the OCB into the NSC, which meant the NSC had greater oversight and control of the OCB. The OCB was officially ‘abolished’ by President Kennedy with Executive Order 10920 on February 18, 1961 that revoked Executive Order 10700.

Both the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) and the Operations Coordinating Board (OCB) were interagency committees that were responsible for covert operations in the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, and reported directly to the National Security Council. Both the PSB and OCB specialized in psychological warfare through the use of propaganda, mass media, and disinformation. These would prove to be the very tools used to deny or ridicule the UFO phenomenon in the U.S. and suggests that both the PSB and OCB played a key role in this.

There has been speculation that the OCB played a critical role in managing the UFO phenomenon, and secretly continues to play this role though with another name.21 Corso’s original notes provide evidence supporting this UFO management role played by both the PSB and the OCB.


According to his military records, Col Corso was assigned to both the Psychological Strategy Board and Operations Coordinating Board when serving with the Eisenhower administration from 1953-1956. Corso received numerous security clearances some of which gave him access to UFO information.


In his original notes, Corso writes:

During my military career at one time or another, I counted nine clearances above “Top Secret” granted to me. These included cryptographic, satellite, code and intercept, special operational clearances and the “Eyes Only” category of special White House (NSC) matters. They made available to me all matter within the government which included “UFO” information.22

Consequently, Corso’s service on both the PSB and OCB, and his access to UFO related information is evidence that both these bodies played critical roles in managing the UFO phenomenon through covert psychological operations. Furthermore, the OCB was not abolished by Kennedy in 1961 as generally thought since the revoking of Executive Order 10700 effectively made the OCB independent of the NSC rather than abolishing it.


Executive Order 10920 only removed the OCB out of control and scrutiny of the Kennedy administration. This made the OCB once again an independent interagency governmental organization with significant power through the covert psychological programs it managed, and an important implementing mechanism for the even more mysterious Majestic-12.

Due to its clandestine nature and unaccountable status, Majestic-12 and covert organizations such as the Operations Coordinating Board that manage UFO affairs are referred to as the ‘secret government’.


President Clinton when asked by famed Washington Post correspondent Sarah McClendon why he didn’t do more to have the truth about UFOs disclosed, he allegedly confided:

“Sarah, there’s a secret government within the government, and I don’t control it.”23

The ‘secret government’ is the government within the government that controls and makes policy decisions over how to deal with extraterrestrials; whether they constitute a ‘threat’ or not; and develops agreements with some extraterrestrial civilizations.



The ‘Internal’ versus ‘External’ Security Threat by Visiting Extraterrestrials


There is intense debate over whether extraterrestrials involved in abductions and other intrusive activities described by Corso (commonly described as ‘Grays’ from Zeta Reticulum) have a covert ‘take-over’ agenda.


Researchers such as Dr David Jacobs (author of The Threat) believe the ‘Grays’ have a covert plan to take-over human society by engineering a superior hybrid race. On the other hand, researchers such as Dr John Mack (author of Passport to the Cosmos) believes the star visitors have a ‘transformative’ agenda designed to blend together the best characteristics of extraterrestrials and humanity.


While this is an important debate, it glosses over one of the key features of the extraterrestrial presence - classified agreements between extraterrestrials and the ‘secret government’. In considering the ‘transformative’ vs. ‘take-over’ debate, it is vital to consider all the data and come up with a nuanced response that takes into account different extraterrestrial races performing activities. Visiting extraterrestrials need to be distinguished on the basis of them either being inside or outside the secret network of agreements reached with the ‘secret government’.24

The key policy issue is not whether we should establish communication with extraterrestrials to resolve differences that lead to confrontations over the number of abductions or other intrusive activities reported by Corso and others. The key issue is the precise nature of the agreements reached with extraterrestrials, and how these are conducted in a covert and unaccountable manner.


As far as the abduction phenomenon is concerned, it is very likely that these were made possible by, or accelerated as a result of, covert agreements by secret government authorities with one or more extraterrestrial civilizations.

Consequently, the national security threat posed by extraterrestrials is a covert one that exists through the classified agreements established by the secret government with some extraterrestrial races. The motivation of extraterrestrials that have entered into these agreements is very questionable and gives considerable cause for suspicion as to their overall intent. Certainly the great number of abductions that have occurred give rise to the ‘take over’ scenario promoted by Dr Jacobs and other researchers.


Once one considers the vast secret infrastructure created to develop extraterrestrial technologies and the illicit funding required for such an infrastructure, it becomes clear that the national security threat posed by extraterrestrials is INTERNAL rather than EXTERNAL.25 Corso’s depiction of extraterrestrials as an external military threat to the U.S. is therefore not accurate.

Extraterrestrials that have entered into agreements with secret government authorities are complicit in the creation of national security system based on secrecy, unaccountability and illicit funding.


This directly threatens US. national security both in terms of a covert take-over by extraterrestrials, and an erosion of the constitutional principles upon which the U.S. is based. The real national security threat posed by some extraterrestrial visitors is a result of the desire of the ‘secret government’ to acquire and develop extraterrestrial technologies at any cost, even if it means giving permission to a limited number of abductions and other intrusive actions.

On the other hand, extraterrestrials who have not entered into such technology exchange agreements with secret government authorities have behaved in ways that display great respect towards individuals they have contacted. This is evidenced in the extensive number of ‘contactee’ or ‘space brother’ reports from the 1950’s, right up to the modern era. These extraterrestrials that typically look human in appearance reflect great respect for human free will and follow what appears to be a clear directive for non-interference in human affairs.


Extraterrestrials that are trying to assist humanity, as described by these alleged contactees, are secretly being targeted by space weapons in order to capture their technology or the EBEs themselves. This also includes Grays from Zeta Reticulum who are involved in abductions that have reached agreements with the secret government.


It does appear that the relationship between the Grays and the ‘secret government’ is a complex one where some whistleblowers report on military confrontations between them in terms of the extent to which either or both have violated the terms of their secret agreements.26



Conclusion - The Use of Space Weapons is an Inappropriate Policy for Extraterrestrial Visitors


In terms of the deploying space weapons, the deliberate targeting of extraterrestrial visitors needs to be exposed.


This requires briefing legislative officials in the U.S. and elsewhere so that a more appropriate policy response can be developed. There is a need to put a halt to the current U.S. policy of targeting extraterrestrial vehicles through the deployment of space based and other advanced weapons systems.


As Hellyer pointed out in his September 2005 speech:

“Are they really enemies or merely legitimate explorers from afar?”

What makes this policy issue complex from the perspective of whistleblowers such as Corso, who is representative of many military officials briefed about the extraterrestrial presence, is that they believe that the weaponization of space is appropriate. This policy is justified, in Corso’s and other military officials’ views, on the basis of the intrusive activities of extraterrestrials.

The abduction phenomenon and related intrusive activities needs to be understood in terms of the highly classified agreements reached between the ‘secret government’ and extraterrestrials. It should be pointed out that military officials such as Corso did not appear to be briefed about friendly extraterrestrials and the latter’s non-intrusive activities. Instead, Corso was given information on abduction related activities and other extraterrestrial intrusions that lead to the psychological framework for the creation of ‘enemy images’. This process is described by Sam Keen in Faces of the Enemy which clearly outlines how the creation of enemy images has been a vital aspect for fighting successful wars.27


In short, what has emerged over the last 50 years or so is the creation of an ‘extraterrestrial enemy’ that justifies the development and deployment of space weapons according to Corso and other military officials. This takes us to the warnings of Dr Carol Rosin, a former spokeswoman to Dr Werner Von Braun, about a contrived extraterrestrial threat being the basis of a public disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence.28 Such a contrived threat would direct public perceptions towards perceptions of extraterrestrials as unfriendly and a security threat. A more nuanced assessment based on the ‘internal’ versus ‘external threat’ posed by extraterrestrials is needed.


Consequently, in response to the profound policy question raised by Hellyer of whether weaponization of space is an appropriate policy response to the extraterrestrial visitors, the answer is NO. There is no need for a military response to the extraterrestrial visitors.


It is clear that extraterrestrials who pose a credible ‘national security threat’ do so by virtue of their involvement in a series of secret agreements that make possible a covert take over of the vast infrastructure of extraterrestrial related projects that exist in the U.S., and other countries. This covert extraterrestrial threat requires a POLITICAL solution rather than a MILITARY solution - public disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence.

With public disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence, there can be the necessary transparency and accountability to ensure that any technology exchange agreements with extraterrestrials are conducted in a responsible way, and do not make human society prone to a covert ‘take-over’ by extraterrestrials. It is very likely that the abduction phenomenon would cease to be a problem once transparency and accountability were brought into play.


Extraterrestrial visitors performing such activities could be closely monitored and persuaded from continuing any activities that violated individual human rights. ‘Persuasive mechanisms’ would come in a variety of ways:

  • rigorous public debate over extraterrestrial activities

  • educating extraterrestrials about human rights standards

  • the anticipated support of many extraterrestrial civilizations in monitoring and countering violations by other extraterrestrials

The Honorable Paul Hellyer called for an urgent public debate over the appropriateness of current military policies directed towards extraterrestrial visitors. The current policy advocated by Col Corso of weaponizing space and targeting extraterrestrial vehicles, is supported by many former and current military officials ‘in the loop’ about the extraterrestrial visitors. The development and use of space based weapons against extraterrestrial visitors will be shown to be a poor policy choice once the true history of ‘secret government’ and extraterrestrial agreements are revealed.


As a former Minister of Defense, Paul Hellyer is very familiar with the importance of policy questions concerning the use of military weapons in resolving international political problems. He is to be congratulated on bringing to the public’s attention the “profoundly important policy questions that must be addressed” with regard to the weaponization of space and the alleged targeting of extraterrestrial visitors.


More Information in "Weaponizing Space "




  1. “Speech by President George W. Bush,” National Defense University, Washington, May 1, 2001.
    Transcript available at: 

  2. Cited in “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-23,” available online at: 

  3. See “Exopolitics Toronto: A Symposium on UFO Disclosure and Planetary Direction,”

  4. Paul Hellyer, “Missile Defense: It Was Wrong Then and It's Wrong Now,” Globe and Mail, May 15, 2003. Available online at: 

  5. For more details on Hellyer’s speech and to view it online, go to:

  6. Hellyer disclosed the existence of these officials in a private conversation with the author in November 8,
    2005, but chose not to reveal further details of them due to their need for anonymity.

  7. Philip Corso, The Day After Roswell (Simon & Schuster, 1997) 290.

  8. Corso, The Day After Roswell, 292.

  9. Philip Corso, L’Alba Di Una Nuova Era [Dawn of a New Age] tr. Maurizio Baiata (Pendragon, 2003). I
    thank Maurizio Baiata for permission to quote extracts based on his translation of Corso’s original notes.

  10. Dawn of a New Age, 77.

  11. Dawn of a New Age, p. 98.

  12. Dawn of a New Age, 78.

  13. For discussion of testimonial and circumstantial evidence of such a meeting, see  Eisenhower’s 1954 Meeting With Extraterrestrials

  14. The Day After Roswell, 292.

  15. Dawn of a New Age, p. 77

  16. See William Hamilton, “California Contactees,”

  17. See Stanton Friedman, Top Secret/Majic (2005): 86-102

  18. Majestic Documents, 128. See also 

  19. See Friedman, Top Secret/Majic, 56-85.

  20. Cited in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, vol. XII, Western Europe, pp. XXXI-XXXV,
    April 16, 2001. Available online at: 

  21. See “A Nation Deceived”  

  22. Corso, Dawn of a New Age, 31.

  23. See

  24. See A Report on the Motivations and Activities of Extraterrestrial Races

  25. See Michael Salla, “The Black Budget Report

  26. See the Michael Salla, “The Dulce Report

  27. See Keen, Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination (Harper Collins, 1991).

  28. See Carol Rosin interview