by Ian Greenhalgh
The mainstream media is completely infiltrated, controlled and manipulated, few would argue otherwise. The alternative media is also infiltrated, controlled and manipulated; it would be massively naive to think otherwise.
There are many prominent figures within the alternative media who are anything but what they claim to be; they include intelligence agents, professional liars and even good old-fashioned con men out to make a buck.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think that it is important to speak the truth, regardless of who it might upset. Lately, I have upset quite a few people by saying what I believe to be the truth based on research and careful analysis.
Critics have opined that it is counter-productive to label others ‘disinfo agents’ or ‘shills’ or ‘trolls’ because they hold opinions that differ or even contradict, our own worldview.
On that, I must agree, that would certainly be counter-productive and in my opinion, both dishonest and childish. It is sadly the case that there are a great many who do resort, far too readily, to this sort of name-calling; however, when the background research has been done to establish exactly who these characters are, then I think it is not only acceptable but morally and intellectually the right thing to do. I have always striven to not be counted among the trolls and name-callers by only speaking out when I am confident I can backup what I am saying with valid research.
When someone tells a blatant lie and you can prove they are lying, is it not correct to call them a liar and a good thing to warn others about this liar?
One of the characters I have caused upset by criticising recently is Timothy Good. I don’t have any particular axe to grind with Good, but he does provide an almost textbook example of the type of character I am guilty of describing as a disinfo agent, or more plainly, a liar.
One of the most prominent UFO researchers, author of many books on UFOs and aliens, popular speaker at UFO conferences. Clearly Good has made a very good living out of all his books and speaking engagements; that alone provide ample motivation to spin a few yarns. A cynical person might go further and suspect there is also a disinfo agenda behind Good’s work; in the absence of proof of that, I won’t speculate.
I upset some friends who are very interested in the field of UFOs and Aliens by calling Timothy Good a liar; they were upset because they really WANT to believe his stories are true.
Why do I call Good a liar? A recent interview with Lucas Alexander of Age of Truth TV provides clear cut evidence of one blatant lie he has told. You can find the entire interview here on Youtube:
In this long interview, one passage had me snorting in derision; it is when Good talks about the case of George Adamski and in Good’s words, his ‘excellent and genuine photographs and film footage of alien craft’. I have saved you the task of watching the entire interview by posting a short clip containing the relevant passage of discussion:
Good states about Adamski:
‘He got a very good movie film of one of those smaller craft over a friend of mine’s house in Silver Springs, Maryland in 1965, the validity of which was confirmed to me by Major-General Kenneth Israel when I was invited to the Pentagon to discuss the subject’.
Those of you already familiar with the George Adamski case will have spotted the great fat lie already, but for those of you unfamiliar, let me enlighten you with just a few facts.
George Adamski was an American who in 1952 took a series of at least five photographs of what he claimed was a scout craft from the Planet Venus.
These very low quality photographs show a flying saucer type object and became a key part of the 1950’s flying saucer craze.
Adamski went on to make all kinds of outlandish claims of contact with aliens from Venus, of flights aboard their craft etc.
However, let us concentrate on the photographs and home movie footage he produced.
A researcher called Joel Gardener has done probably the best work debunking the Adamski case; he has published an excellent paper on the subject which you can read here:
Here are the two most oft reproduced of Adamski’s photographs of ‘flying saucers’; remember that Timothy Good described these images as ‘excellent and genuine’.
Well, it is blatantly obvious to me that these images are completely bogus, that there is nothing ‘excellent and genuine’ about them.
They look like crude frauds to me and Joel Gardener made a concrete case for them being completely fraudulent.
After painstaking research, Gardener not only identified the object seen in the Adamski photos as being a model constructed from the top part of a gas lantern, he was able to identify which make and model of lantern Adamski had used – one sold by Sears through their catalogue from the 1930s onwards.
Gardener then obtained one of these Sears lanterns and directly compared it to what is depicted in the Adamski photographs.
Gardener took a photo of the top piece of his lantern from a similar angle to the ‘flying saucer’ in one of Adamski’s photographs.
Gardener’s lantern, being a brown painted model, appears much darker, it is likely that Adamski used a red painted model or else he repainted it for the photos.
Nevertheless, it becomes very clear that Adamski took a photo of a model he had made from a gas lantern and some other parts.
So there you have it, a very succinct but pointed debunking of Adamski and his flying saucers.
Back to Timothy Good and his statement describing Adamski’s fraud as ‘excellent and genuine photographs and film footage of alien craft’.
How are we to take this statement? Obviously, it is completely wrong, it shows a gas lantern made in the USA, not a alien craft from Venus or anywhere else.
So we then have to ask ourselves why Timothy Good made such an utterly false statement. There are two answers:
A. He genuinely believes these are real photos of real alien craft.
B. He’s knowingly lying to us.
A person would have to be either stupid or deranged, possibly both, in order to believe Adamski’s crude fraud was in any way real; I do not believe Timothy Good is either stupid or deranged.
Therefore we can only conclude that he is knowingly lying to us. Good even goes so far as to offer apparent verification of the authenticity of the Adamski images by stating:
‘he got a very good movie film of one of those smaller craft over a friend of mine’s house in Silver Springs, Maryland in 1965, the validity of which was confirmed to me by Major-General Kenneth Israel when I was invited to the Pentagon to discuss the subject’.
Maj-General Israel certainly exists, he retired from the USAF in 1998. One has to wonder if he is aware that Timothy Good is using his name to promote his false statements?
So we can conclude that Timothy Good lied about George Adamski’s flying saucers; what does that tell us about Good and his honesty? Personally, I am happy to conclude that Timothy Good is a liar and he is knowingly and deliberately spreading those lies, and might I add, being rather well paid to do so, if one counts his speaking engagements and book sales.
Is it wrong for me to call Good a liar? Shouldn’t I undertake a deeper and more detailed research into his books and lectures before using the ‘L’ word?
I don’t think it is wrong, furthermore I don’t think I should spend any more time listening to or reading anything that Good has to say for the simple reason that I am certain that one of the main reasons why disinfo operations like Timothy Good exist is to cause honest researchers like myself to waste large amounts of time trying to prove or disprove what they are saying; time that is far better spent on other avenues of research.
Finally, let me explain why calling people like Timothy Good a liar upsets some people:
it is because they have a very real and tangible desire to believe that the stories are true;
that President Eisenhower did meet with Aliens,
that little green (or is it gray?) men in flying saucers are whizzing about our planet;
that truth is stranger than fiction and that there are great truths to be uncovered.
In short, like Fox Mulder, they want to believe.
I shall return to this subject of ‘figures in the alternative media that I have said things about which caused people to get upset with me’ in the near future.
His studies in history and background in the media industry have given him a keen insight into the use of mass media as a creator of conflict in the modern world.
His favored areas of study include state-sponsored terrorism, media manufactured reality and the role of intelligence services in manipulation of populations and the perception of events.