UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 9

Re: Elaine Douglas on John Ford

From: Elaine M Douglass <elaine26@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 18:48:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Elaine Douglas on John Ford

>Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:10:27 -0500 (CDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elaine M Douglass on John Ford

>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Elaine Douglas on John Ford [was: Ford
>Fund?]
>>From: Elaine M Douglass <elaine26@juno.com>
>>Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:10:27 EDT

>>My Dear Dennis:

><snip>

>>I can see, though, why you liked Mr. "Hepcat's" article, Dennis.
>>Both you and he could vie for "intemperate of the year" honors in
>>anybody's book.

>>Elaine Douglass

>My Dear Elaine:

>And you are the "ingrate of the year." I'll repeat some of your
>original remarks which began this exchange:

>>>>His lawyer deserted me, and Dennis Stacy was eager to print
>>>>incriminating information on John and did, and John himself did
>>>>not or could not defend himself.

>Why am I the one named here, and not the lawyer who deserted you
>and presumably his client? Why are you trying to make me a major
>villain in the John Ford saga?

Dear Dennis:

I would have answered this message sooner, but I was away for about 10
days.

Dennis, I'm really sorry we got into this discussion of John Ford, and
you are right--none of what happened was your fault. When I wrote that
message I didn't mean to single you out. When the communiques came in
about John Ford I was shocked and I just rattled off whatever came into
my mind quickly. Now I don't agree with everything you've said below, and
I don't think you're a cream puff. You're a tough individual, but that's
the way you are and you were doing a journalists' job at that time.

>And since when were you granted
>the ability to read minds, so that you know when I'm "eager" to
>print something or not? If I was so eager to publish
>incriminating information, then why would I have published your
>article first (or, for that matter, at all)?

>After I did, though, it quickly became apparent to me, if not
>you, that there were no relevant, related UFO issues as far as
>John Ford's own unfortunate personal circumstances were
>concerned. There was no concerted effort on the part of local
>authorities or anyone else to cover up the ridiculous Long Island
>crash or otherwise squelch John Ford's continuing
>"investigations."

Dennis, you can't say what you've said in the above paragraph,
because the fact is we don't know what happened to John Ford. We
could though narrow it down to 2 hypothesis. First would be that
the police came down on John ONLY because one of his "friends"
tried to illegally sell one of John's legally registered
firearms, an informant got wind of it, and the police moved in
only for that reason. John liked to talk big and the police
taped him doing that--"we're gonna put radium in so and so's
toothpaste." John had bunches of people he didn't like--so do
you Dennis, and so do I. And haven't you been known to make
remarks like, 'the next time I see so and so, I'm going to push
him in front of a fast moving car'? I've said tons of things
like that in my life. It's called hyperbole. The reason John had
radium--in a very small quantity--was for the purpose of
calibrating his 2 geiger counters.

Now Dennis, I was at the MUFON conf last week, and MUFON
official John Schussler told everybody they might consider
purchasing a geiger counter, and other technical equipment, to
use in investigations. John had geiger counters; radium is a
source of a known quantity of radioactivity and you use it to
calibrate a geiger counter when the counter gets out of wack. So
the police recorded John saying that and technically he
committed a crime by saying it, and so if you just suppose John
was massively unlucky, and you can suppose the DA wanted
publicity to show the people of Long Island how tough he was on
crime--massively unlucky, and a guy with no criminal record and
who used to be a law enforcement officer himself, and it leads
to all the bad things that happened to John. Prohibitive bail of
$350,000. He sits in jail for a year and he deterioriates. I
KNEW JOHN FORD, DENNIS, I KNEW HIM WELL, AND ALL THE TIMES I
SPENT WITH HIM HE DID NOT DO ANYTHING CRAZY AROUND ME. The
"craziest" thing I saw John do was he got a video which I swear
had nothing on it and he swore there were "aliens" on it, and I
said John, stop this nonsense and he went on and on with it.
But, Dennis, that is not crazy--crazy means psychotic; only
psychotic justifies putting someone in a mental hospital or
drugging them in jail--the behavior I describe was neurotic, not
psychotic, and, Dennis, we are ALL neurotic. You know it's
interesting Dennis, but one of the tales John told me, allegedly
related by some source or other, was of an alien craft landing
on a farm, the farmer alerting authorities, the farm is secured
and everything removed and then the farmer is given a drug, by
the authorities, which precipitates a temporary psychotic
episode, the farmer is temporarily hospitalized, and thereafter
no one would believe him about the UFO which landed on his farm.

Do you put such tactics beyond our govt? The other alternative
would be to off the farmer. We wouldn't prefer that, would we?
So the govt benevolently administers this drug.

I don't have personal knowledge of that story; I didn't
interview that alleged informant. I did personally interivew a
former military who told me his job in the military was to be a
member of one of those fast response units, which would go in
anywhere and do whatever needed to be done--and he told me he
and his colleagues were quite aware of the alien reality.

Back to John Ford. Just massively unlucky. That's all there was
to it. Could be!

Other alternative is, as I said in my article, is that there
were UFO events on Long Island which John was made aware of and,
however garbled his rendiditon of these events may--or may
not--have been, that deeper authorities wanted to get rid of
John and did.

>In short, it was clear that John Ford had gone off the deep end,
>and you wanted us all to follow him. If you'd had your way, the
>Journal would have been turned into the John Ford Update.

That (above) is not a fair statement Dennis. I gave you one,
well-written article and did not attempt to have further
insertions, other than a rebuttal.

>You're right that I should have edited out Hepcat's most
>egregious remark. A belated apology on my part. You're wrong if
>you think, in the wake of your own article, that I didn't get
>several articles complaining about why we were giving space to
>this non-case in the first place.

Of course, Dennis, and when didn't you get letters complaining
about "why are you giving space to this or that non-case?" That
was what it was like being editor of the mufon journal.

>So I repeat: I am not the villain here. Nothing I did had
>anything to do with Ford's own actions or contributed in any way
>whatsoever to his present situation. I regret the latter, but I
>had nothing to do with it. You might as well insinuate that I had
>something to do with Richard Boylan and Edith Fiore losing their
>licenses to practice.

You are absolutely correct Dennis. What happened to John took
place in the DA's office on Long Island, and they weren't
reading the mufon journal. Again, I am sorry I used your name
and implied anything like that.

>Two final thoughts to consider: some already discombobulated
>people inevitably drift into this field. Other borderline cases
>drift into the field and then become discombobulated. This stuff
>is not for the faint of heart.

>But take heart, nonetheless. As you well know, I no longer edit
>the MUFON Journal, which means you won't now have to go over my
>head to promote your own personal vision of the UFO phenomenon. I
>didn't buy the latter, and I make no apology for it. Just as I
>didn't buy the Ford, Boylan, Fiore or Corso version, either.

Not fair, Dennis. I went over your head to publish a 1/3 column
rebuttal to a nasty letter, not to promote my "personal vision."
Unless you're calling "personal vision" my insistance that John
Ford should not be in jail--because he is not a threat to any
person's safety. The one who wrote that nasty letter was
confused. He seemed to think that because he didn't like John
Ford, therefore John Ford should be in jail. In my article I
never held I knew for sure what was behind John's arrest, only
certainty was he should not be in jail because because he is not
a threat to anyone. I wish you would have respected me a little
more for my position and been a little nicer to me. Nonetheless,
I again apologize for dragging your name into this mess. I have
no wish to do you harm.