UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 2

Re: Friedman's Laws for 'Debunkers'

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 22:01:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 09:13:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman's Laws for 'Debunkers'

>Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:42:30 -0400
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re:
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Regarding...

>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Friedman's Laws for 'Debunkers'
>>Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:50:35 -0400

>Serge wrote:

>>Now this is an interesting one.

>>_Skeptics' UFO Newsletter_ by Philip J. Klass. #43, Jan, 1997
>>404 "N" Street, SW, Washington DC 20024     (C) 1997

James,

I hope you have as much patience reading this as I had reading
the SUN document. And I sure hope my post will be less confusing
then the later. Let's look at a few things:

Since you are ready to accept as face value NSA's reports on
'UFO (PROBABLY BALLOONS)', I am sure you are ready to accept as
face value the rest of the stuff:

[XXXX] REPORT SIGHTING OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. AN
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT [...] THE OBJECT WAS DESCRIBED AS
HAVING A SEMI-CIRCLE SHAPE [...] * [XXXX] UNIDENTIFIED FLYING
OBJECT [...] [...] A SMOKING LUMINOUS OBJECT MOVED THROUGH [...]
SIGHT THREE UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS [XXXX] AT 1915 THREE
LUMINOUS OBJECTS WERE SEEN IN THE WESTERN PART OF [...] THE
FIRST OBJECT WAS SHAPED LIKE A HORSESHOE AND WAS WHITE IN COLOR.
THE OTHER TWO WERE ROUND AND YELLOW IN COLOR

etc.

Those UFOs don't seem to be your average every day balloon. What
were they? And in the wrong order the main question: how many of
the 156 reports contained those types of sightings? In a
nutshell: the kick about wine is not the 88% water but the 12%
of ethanol + esters + pigments + minerals + aromatics + etc. The
SUN document has apparently concentrated on water.

It does also raise a few questions.


1. If the NSA did have an interest in UFOs, would Deuley have
the right to openly speak about it?

2. How is it that SUN got only documents prior to 1982? Did SUN
file a request for all UFO matter in NSA documentation from 1982
to 1997?


3.
>  "The second non-Comint document is a three page undated,
>unofficial draft of a monograph with a four page appendix by the
>same agency employee who authored the draft referenced in
>sub-paragraph a, above....It is entitled 'UFOs _and the
>Intelligence Community Blind Spot to Surprise or Deceptive
>Data_'

Where is the official, final, dated monograph? NSA provides the
draft but not the final report? You should have seen the draft
of this E-mail... It had very little resemblance with the final
product.


4. The last paragraph of the SUN article: (capitals are mine)

>  The newly released "more declassified" copy of the 1980 NSA
>court document offers the following explanation for withholding
>the UFO Comint documents -- AN EXPLANATION THAT WAS COMPLETELY
>BLACKED OUT ON THE FIRST VERSION RELEASED BY THE AGENCY: "_The
>communication sources involved in this [FOIA] case -- are the
>source of extremely valuable communications intelligence covering
>a broad range of kinds of information from [XXXX] and other
>[XXXX] acitivities to [XXXX] and [XXXX] matters. Release of
>these documents would seriously damage the ability of the United
>States to gather this vital intelligence information_...."

Another interesting one: NSA blacked out those lines in the
first place because their publication was a threat to national
security? Let me rephrase that: it was a threat to national
security for NSA to say that those documents could pose a threat
to national security?


5. In:

>Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 10:18:13 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO Security Classification Hearings

>>From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose)
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 05:40:43 +0200
>>Subject: C-SPAN On UFO Security Classification Hearings

We could read:

>>All the official records made public under the UFO title are
>>unevaluated reports gathered through various human intelligence means.
>>These reports always quote the term UFO, as it has been relayed to them
>>by sources. Mostly these sources are civilians, unaware of the current
>>official terminology used by the US government. The US military uses
>>two main terms in compiling and studying the UFO subject: Uncorrelated
>>Targets (UCT), for earth-bound unidentified objects, and Uncorrelated
>>Event Reports (UER) for space related events. I wrote to North American
>>Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, about their terminology. They
>>replied:

>>'Historically, the term UFO was used by the Air Force starting in 1947
>>and ending in 1974 with the shelving of the "Blue Book" project. We all
>>know what the term UFO means, we just don't use it.....The specific
>>term "UFO" is not used by this command even though you could say that
>>this term would equate to UTR [unknown track report], either an
>>uncorrelated event or an unknown track, since an unidentified flying
>>object could be considered either.'(3)

>>Further, I was told, 'Uncorrelated Events Reports (UERs), which are
>>space related events on the United States Space Command (USSPACECOM)
>>side of the house, are always classified SECRET.' (4)

>>Uncorrelated Targets are categorised as:

>>Significant UCTs, Nonsignificant UCTs, Critical UCTs, and

>>False UCTs. (5)


Does the same apply to NSA? e.g. Acronyms for the term UFO?


Just a few questions,

Regards,

Serge Salvaille