Alien Liaison
Timothy Good
Century, London, 1991
Please note: all the telephone conversations referred to by the author in this essay have been tape-recorded.
Published in May 1991, the thesis in Good’s book is (a) that alien space craft have landed and/or crashed on earth; and (b) that the U.S. government is concealing this fact while attempting to recreate the space technology used by the aliens. Working on the alien craft project is a super secret government group code-named MJ12. This is not a new thesis in the world of UFOlogy and Mr Good received much of the extensive media attention he did partly because of the support for his claims from Admiral Lord Hill-Norton (who endorses the book with a ‘Commentary’), and partly because of chapter 10, Cosmic Journey. Since Good has no physical evidence — pictures, films, artefacts — of the existence of aliens, let alone of their meetings with members of the U.S armed forces etc., he has to rely on the testimony of individuals. In chapter 10 that is provided essentially by a Mr Bob Oeschler, who claims to have worked on a U.S. government-funded program working with crashed alien craft; retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, former Director of the National Security Agency; and retired Rear Admiral Shapiro, former head of the Office of Naval Intelligence. As a former NSA head, Inman’s evidence in particular is quite a coup. For if any state agency in the U.S. could be presumed to know about alien landings etc., it would be the NSA with its global surveillance cover.
What Bobby Ray Inman said
Mr Good begins chapter 10 with an alleged encounter between Admiral Inman and Bob Oeschler in May 1988 and the transcript of a subsequent telephone conversation between them. According to Oeschler and Good, in that conversation Admiral Inman confirmed the existence of alien spacecraft. On p. 191, printed in italics, is this exchange:
Bob Oeschler: Do you anticipate that any of the recovered vehicles would ever become available for technological research?
Admiral Inman: Again, I honestly don’t know. Ten years ago the answer would have been no. Whether, as time has evolved, they are beginning to become more open on it, there’s a possibility. Again Mr Hineman [Retired Deputy Director of Science and Technology Division, CIA] probably would be the best person to put that kind of question to…’
I have since received a copy of the entire telephone conversation from Mr Oeschler and there is not a single specific reference to the subject of UFOs in it. Interestingly, Mr Good did not include in his book the text of a letter he had received from Admiral Inman dated 18 December 1989. This reads:
Dear Mr Good, Just a short note to thank you for your letters of 17 November and 7 December 1989. I did receive your book [presumably Good’s previous book, Above Top Secret — author] and appreciate your thoughtfulness for sending it. I look forward to reading it in the weeks ahead. Unfortunately I do not know of any information which could be of assistance to you for your UFO report. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you success in your findings. Please pass my very best wishes to Admiral Lord Hill-Norton when you have the opportunity.’
Admiral Hill-Norton is Timothy Good’s most distinguished supporter in this country, a man whose name would — did — open doors among the Anglo- American military and intelligence elite.
After receiving the complete text of the Oeschler-Inman telephone conversation, I asked Mr Oeschler if anyone else but Mr Good had listened to it. He gave me the name of a Mr John Dingley. On 14 July 1991 I telephoned Mr Dingley, who confirmed (a) that he had heard the taped telephone conversation, and (b) that there was no reference to UFOs in it. By then I had already contacted Admiral Inman, enclosing the pages of Alien Liaison on which he was quoted, asking him for comments. In his reply, received on July 26 1991, Admiral Inman said:
‘I received your letter of July 1st concerning Timothy Good’s book Alien Liaison. I believe all these allegations to be false. Concerning your comments on a group of scientists called MJ12, I have no such awareness and do not believe such a group exists. In summary, the book is filled with fabrication and distortions. My conclusion from the pages I have seen is that the book is without any merit.’
On 2 August 1991 I faxed another letter to Admiral Inman, asking him the following:
‘What did you think Bob Oeschler was inquiring about? It is still obscure what your understanding was as to the topic of the conversation. Perhaps I should add that Bob Oeschler maintains that in his initial approach to you, when he gave you his card, he mentioned to you clearly and briefly that he required your assistance in contacting a member of the MJ12. He maintains that you accepted his card, and in a cordial manner ‘Okayed it’.
On 8 August 1991 I received the following from Admiral Inman, dated 5 August.
‘Dear Dr Victorian,
In response to the request in your letter dated 2 August 1991 for an ‘ultimate clarification’ by me re Mr Oeschler, I provide the following:
- I receive hundreds of calling cards each year from individuals who approach me at public appearances. I have no specific recollection of the receipt of a calling card from Mr Oeschler prior to our telephone conversation.
- I have never heard of any organization called MJ12 nor did I have any understanding from Mr Oeschler about his seeking information on a specific organization. His use of Admiral Lord Peter Hill-Norton’s name was the principal factor in my having a conversation at all with Mr Oeschler.
- Having no prior knowledge of Mr Oeschler’s interest, I did not understand until well into his dialogue that his research was about Unidentified Flying Objects.
- Throughout 22 years of service in the intelligence community, I never encountered any credible evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial or interplanetary entities. I do not believe any credible evidence of such activity exists.
I have been appraised by RADM [Rear Admiral] Shapiro that Mr Oeschler totally misrepresented both the nature and content of their conversation. I remain persuaded that complete misrepresentation of my views and those of RADM Shapiro has occurred and thus I distrust any and all stories and conclusions that have been conveyed. I hope you will entertain no further doubts about my views.’
Shapiro says Oeschler a fraud
I had already contacted retired RADM Shapiro, former head of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) on 3 August 1991. Asked if he had ever met Mr Bob Oeschler, he replied:
‘He met me on one occasion and I realised that he was a fraud. He had arranged a meeting with me under fraudulent circumstances and I dismissed him almost immediately. I never had a meeting with him in a restaurant as he is suggesting in that book. [on p. 195] I never discussed any of that material with him.’
I asked RADM Shapiro what Mr Oseschler introduced himself as. ‘He introduced himself as an independent… he didn’t even describe what he was doing initially in order to see me. He said he had been referred to me by somebody, [Inman] that he should contact me. I tried to contact that person to verify — he was out of the country. I finally agreed that I will meet with him. And then, all he had was his card that described himself as some sort of robotic expert or something. You know, a complete sham.’
On pp. 198-201 Mr Oeschler talks about meeting an unidentified General who warned him off his inquiries in 1989. I worked out eventually that the ‘General’ was Lt. General Thomas P. Stafford, a former NASA astronaut. (Mr Oeschler subsequently confirmed that Stafford was the ‘General’ in a telephone conversation with me on August 8, 1991.) On the same day I rang General Stafford. I told him I had a copy of Mr Good’s book and understood that he had met Mr Oeschler. General Stafford did not remember Mr Oeschler, did not remember meeting him, and did not remember a ‘security device’ in the Pentagon Mr Oeschler describes. Finally I asked him if he had seen any evidence of flying saucers. ‘Hell no’, he said.
NASA and anti-gravity
In Chapter 10 Mr Oeschler describes being employed to work on an anti-gravity propulsion device. It was not difficult to locate the facilities he is talking about on pp. 202-4. The complex to which Mr Oeschler claims to have been taken to ‘during the second week of January’ exists. I telephoned Linda Billica, Assistant Test Director for Reduced Gravity Office, NASA. She explained to me that there is no anti-gravity chamber as described by Mr Oeschler but told me that NASA does employ a KC-135 aircraft to fly loops, at the top of which reduced gravity is achieved for about 30 seconds. I faxed her the passage from Mr Good’s book, and on August 22, 1991 I received the following letter dated August 12 from her.
Dear Dr Victorian, The material you sent me from the book, Alien Liaison, is not based on fact:
- No one by the name of Bob Oeschler was ever manifested to fly with us on the KC-135.
- Ellington Field has not been an Air Force Base since 1976.
- There are no billeting facilities at Ellington Field.
- The shuttle’s Remote Manipulator System (the ‘arm’) was never designed by Canada, has been operating for years, and has never required any such ‘reconfiguration’.
- NASA has no ‘anti-gravity chamber’ anywhere. As I explained over the phone, we fly a KC-135 aircraft in a series of parabolas to obtain short periods of microgravity.
- Protein crystals have nothing to do with superconductive materials.
- NASA has no ‘bunker-like building north of Houston’ and no ‘alien craft’.
- Absolutely no effort is underway to design or build any ‘ground-based anti-gravity chamber’.
I’m sorry Dr. Victorian, but Alien Liaison is hogwash. I do not wish to have my name or my organization’s name associated with it in any way.’
Conclusion
Based on my inquiries so far, there is no credible evidence of the events described by Mr Good in chapter 10 of his book. I will let another of those quoted by Mr Good have the final word. Still critical of what Mr Good published about him in an earlier book, Col. William Coleman decided to ignore Mr Good’s inquiry for this book. Undaunted, Mr Good included a section about Colonel Coleman. In a September 1991 letter to me, Colonel Coleman wrote:
‘I read all of the material sent with great interest and am fortified in my opinion of Mr Good’s alleged talent as a researcher and author. It is amazing that people of this ilk can be so successful. (I am presuming that he is enjoying some income from these ventures.)…. I regret having agreed to talk to him with reference to my UFO sighting (1955)… but I did it as a favor to a friend. Never again! His use of my alleged statements in his first book were totally manufactured out of hot air and were without truth in toto.’
Crop Circles
Meanwhile, out on the fringes of all this, there is the curious case of the crop circles. Mufon UFO Journal (about which I know nothing) claimed the following in issue 284, December 1991.
- Ministry of Defence personnel produced some faked circles in July 1990.
- In September 1990 a meeting on the circles was held between reps from Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of the Environment at which the use of disinformation was discussed. (Information allegedly from a participant at the meeting.)
It also reported the following: In September ’91 the newspaper Today carried the ‘confession’ of Doug Bowers and David Chorley that they had been making the patterns in fields in Britain which had caused so much interest and speculation. The story in Today was by-lined to ‘Copyright MBF Services’, presumably linked to MBF Consultancy a 1991-formed company whose sole shareholders are a Dr Andrew Clifford and his wife. Dr Clifford is an engineer and metallurgist and his principal employer is the MOD.
In issue 286, February 1992, George Wingfield, author of the research in the paragraph above, adds: he cannot connect ‘MBF Consultancy’ with ‘MBF Services’; that the editor of Today said MBF Services were ‘just an agency that handled the details for us’; and Today journalist Graham Brough said that ‘MBF Services was just a joke. We made it up.’ This last claim seems unlikely. How many other cases have you noticed where journalists voluntarily attribute a story to a non-existent agency?
Wingfield comments that ‘suspicion that the Doug and Dave story is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign remains as strong as ever’.