< home


What's the "agenda" of ufx.org?


This a brief position statement to clarify the thesis of the website. A more developed version of this will be posted as an article titled "Towards a Theory of UFOs in a Cold War Context" in the near future

Concepts Rejected:

1 claims that UFOs or extraterrestrial UFO material have actually been recovered (including at Roswell)

2 conspiracy theories in general

3 the notion that the Apollo moon landings were faked

4 stories of pre-Gagarin cosmonauts

5 all "Majestic 12 documents," and any other similar unsubstantiated documents that have "arrived in the mail," such as the "SOM 1-01 manual"

6 "Face on Mars" speculation

7 HAARP hysteria

8 chupacabra tales, chemtrails, UFOs infesting video from the Space Shuttle, and so on

Concepts Supported:

1 the existence of thousands of reports of puzzling observations of aerial objects over a span of hundreds of years

2 the fact that many of these reports seem to describe craft-like objects

3 the fact that after 1945, as aerospace technology advanced, a resemblance was noted between some of these anomalous craft-like objects and specific projects under development

4 the existence of verifiably authentic archival documents, accessible to any researcher, that demonstrate real concern (because of point 3 above) on the part of noted US military, intelligence and civilian aerospace figures about the implications of these reports - and their surprising efforts to obtain and study evidence of the reality of these reports

5 the equally surprising apparent interrelationship of US UFO research efforts and classified aerospace programs, such as covert strategic reconnaissance vehicle development projects and projects aimed at obtaining technical intelligence on foreign aerospace hardware

6 the unfortunate fact that the high ridicule factor surrounding anything UFO-related (due to items such as those in the "Rejected" category) has prevented, and continues to prevent, objective consideration of these points by most mainstream aerospace history experts and scientists. I believe that aerospace historians have overlooked a rich and interesting trove of documents because of the all-pervasive taint that the subject area has acquired.

(please see Credits and Notes)