UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 8

Re: Vallee Hoaxed Corbin, UFO Sweden & Sightings

From: 'Jack Hudson' <true.x-file.news@n2news.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 21:25:02 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 08:41:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Vallee Hoaxed Corbin, UFO Sweden & Sightings

To Mr. Micheal Corbin, Director ParaNet Information Services,

>Michael Corbin wrote:
>To Whomever:

>Is this for real?  Usually legitimate press releases
>have contact information in them.  I have never heard
>of Marshall Barnes, nor the TRUE.X-FILE.NEWS Internet
>News Service.

We're new. Our e-mail address was attached. He's been around for
a while. See http://ufomind.com/people/s/strom for an example.

>What is more perplexing is the strong language that is
>used by whoever wrote this press release without
>sufficient information to make such radical claims.

The claims weren't "radical". We provided links to exact
evidence to substantiate the charges that Mr. Barnes made.
That's more than Vallee did or that you have done here so far.

>For example, I see nothing from Jacques Vallee or
>myself in response or refutation about these claims
>contained in the release.

If you could refute them, you would be doing it now. Vallee has
been silent on the issue and has refused attempts to defend
himself because he can't. You obviously haven't even looked at
the evidence or you wouldn't be referring to "claims". These are
"facts" based on the words and statements that Vallee and
Dudgeon made, that Vallee, the JSE, Bernhard Haisch, you (though
unwittingly)and others have promoted around the world in the JSE
and the internet. The statements that were made in the Vallee
article and promoted in part by you, have now been proven to be
false with evidence which we provided links to. What's so
radical about that? About telling the truth?

>It is usually customary, and professional, to make
>inquiries of those being accused before printing such
>outrageous allegations.

Again, your statements and those by Vallee, have been public and
were linked to in the release. Your statements and his are on
record. The only outrageous thing is that Vallee actually
thought that he wouldn't be caught and that you have the
audacity to act as if someone has said something without
substantiation. Yet you still have failed to quote one word from
our article to back your accusations up.

>Anyway, I am unable to take this seriously until we
>have some way to contact Mr. Barnes and can
>investigate him further to determine where he is
>coming from.

You can't take it seriously because you have egg on your face.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be making yourself appear more
ridiculous. The evidence cited in the article was compelling
enough for Jeff Rense of Sightings On The Radio to post the
article as a rebuttal, something that he wouldn't do, I'm sure,
if the claims were simply as you describe them. The way that
you're making these wild protests without any kind of examples
of the ridiculous charges that you're making is keeping me from
taking *you* seriously.

>At this particular point I can say that I do not take
>too kindly to the use of my name in connection with
>anything of this sort.

You're the one that connected your name to this matter when you
said that is was "good research". That's not our fault. You
chose to stand by it. You can walk away now.

>I have known Jacques Vallee for several years and have
>found him to be one of the most professional and
>thorough UFO researchers I have ever met.

What better a profile for someone to engage in such a deception?
Who would benefit from such an act? Certainly not Vallee. Ever
hear of "agent in place"?

>I have never known him to be dishonest or deliberate
>in anything underhanded or fraudulent.

Well you do now. There's a first time for everything. If Barnes
hadn't investigated it, Vallee would still be viewed that way by
most. But the evidence speaks for itself. Evidence which it
appears that you have failed to look at from an article that you
have failed to even quote from.

>It appears that Mr. Barnes is a rank amateur sleuth
>with an axe to grind as he has never contacted me or
>Dr. Vallee, as far as I know,

No Mike, you're obviously the rank amatuer here, not Mr. Barnes.
He put together a professional package of evidence that was 89
pages long and then took the time to try to find as much of it
as he could on the web so that an electronic document could be
assembled that would allow anyone to instantly link to the
evidence to see it for themselves. He even provided links to
various reproductions of the Vallee article so that no one would
think that he was quoting it out of context. That's
profesionalism of the highest order. Amateurism is claiming that
something that you hadn't even check-up on was "good research".
*Rank* amateurism is your coming in here making wild accusations
about evidence that you've obviously been too lazy or frightened
to face up to yourself. In addition, you're talking about things
that you know nothing about. We said in our article that Barnes
had contacted Haisch and that then Haisch and Vallee conspired
to suppress the knowledge that the article was fraudulent. What?
You mean they didn't let you in on it? What wasn't in the
article is that Haisch and Vallee have known about this for
nearly 6 months, and that Haisch even failed to notify SSE
founder and President Peter Sturrock that there was a problem
that would result in serious ramifications for the image of the
Society if it got out. Barnes initially sent Haisch an 8 page
letter outlining the evidence that shows the premeditation,
method, motive, opportunity and execution behind Anatomy Of A
Hoax as a di information project. He did so so that Haisch could
put a disclaimer on the JSE web page for the Anatomy article,
effectively distancing themselves from the fall-out to come.
Haisch refused to do so as we have already cited despite being
told that endorsement of the article would lead to questions of
ethics, etc. for him and the JSE. If the intent of this
scam(trying to prove the PE was a hoax) is so important that it
had to be attempted with fraud and lies, important enough for
Vallee and Haisch to not give a damn about protecting the
reputation of JSE and SSE, for Haisch to risk his own reputation
needlessly, what makes you think they'd give a damn about you?
You're just a casuality, Mike. You're evidence that there were
people decieved by what Vallee wrote. You're evidence as to why
Haisch should have done what over twenty of the world's top
scientific journal editors (JAMA, Surface Review Letters, The
Scientist and Nature, for starters)have now stated that they
would have done if evidence that they had nwittingly published a
fraudulent article had been presented to them - notify their
readers. You're evidence that instead of looking at the evidence
and evaluating it like Jeff Rense did, that you have acted like
an amateur and resorted to calling names and making entirely
unfounded cry baby accusations.  Why should Barnes bother to
contact you? What verification of anything could you provide?
You were one of the dupes! Barnes went to data bases and
historical archives that would support or condemn Dudgeon's
claims. Barnes did an investigation that, as far as I can tell,
completely kicks-ass and makes so-called researchers like
yourself look like wanna-be X-File detectives. You've made all
these charges and yet you haven't cited one example or quotation
from our article to back up the bull that you're slinging, so
I'd would just give it a rest. Evidence talks, Mike. You know
how the rest of it goes.

>to determine the veracity of any statements made in
>Vallee's article.

What was the need? You sure didn't determine the veracity of the
statements in the Vallee article before claiming that is was
"very good research by Jacques Vallee and others" (see
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7354/Hoax.txt  see 3rd paragraph
under "Fowarded by:", 2nd line beginning with "I am...")and he
gave you the piece of trash himself!  We had links to various
other versions across the internet. Haisch tried to defend the
Anatomy article by saying it was peer reviewed.  Peer reviewed
or not, the evidence proves that the article is a fraud. No
one's being quoted out of context.Barnes took pains to be sure
to link to every statement that he refers to. Don't come crying
to us. You're Vallee's victim. He used you because he felt he
needed to. He played you like a CIA spook plays his field
operatives. He played you the way William Moore play Paul
Bennewitz, except not as bad. You should refer back to Vallee's
book Messengers of Deception where he learned how to do all this
stuff. At the top of page 189 where he says he still has a lot
to learn from his Major Murphy on how counter-intel ops work.
Better yet, go to the second and third paragraphs of page 203
where he shows how writers and editors with agendas could
accomplish disinformation cover-up objectives by hiding behind
rationalism and supposedly defending science with articles that
degrade UFOs and "other ridiculous subjects". Just insert the
JSE as the publication and Vallee and Haisch and their Aviary
pals over there as the editorial board, and you've got a
step-by-step description of what he tried to do with the JSE and
Anatomy Of A Hoax. The most incrimminating thing about all of
this is that he wrote of how he knew of this back in 1979. Looks
like Anatomy was supposed to be his dissertation, a deliberate
application of the disinformation skills that he admits that he
learned. Barnes is the one that sent us all of this stuff. All
the evidence is what Barnes found. We checked it out to see if
it was all true and it was. No, Barnes is no amateur. If the
whole deal hadn't been so simple, just checking out Dudgeon's
statements, I'd say Barnes is a genius. You're just one of
Vallee's gullible dupes, who isn't even man enough to stand up,
admit that he'd been fooled and demand an explanation from
Vallee. You're pathetic. Need a hanky?

>ParaNet posted the article, as it does with many
>articles, with a strict disclaimer and
>provides any information that it does with an
>understanding that it is provided as a public service
>to our readers, with no editorial control, therefore
>neither I, nor ParaNet, was "hoaxed" by Dr. Vallee.

Yes you were, when you backed it publically by saying it was
"good research." The article even had obvious logical flaws in
it. When Dudgeon's story was checked out against Navy records,
historical archives, WWII era photos, action reports, everything
that we provided links to and more, it completely fell apart.
It's the biggest sham that I've ever seen, even bigger than the
Hitler Diaries or the Alien Autopsy flick because it was so
easily disproven, so much so that Jeff Rense immediately
contacted us when he found out, to get permission to post it as
a rebuttal at his site. Rense is a man I can respect. You're the
one claiming to be an investigator and you got stung. Get over
it. This isn't your fight. Barnes is after Vallee, etc. and he
was even after the ONR and set-up one of their PR officers so
that the guy would lie to him in writing. Barnes isn't after
you. You don't *want* Barnes after you. All that's going to
happen if you get in the way is more bad publicity for you
because I've already been told that there is increasing media
interest in the story. We weren't even the first to break it. If
you try to defend Vallee, you're just going to do yourself more
damage. It's an OBVIOUS hoax. The evidence is overwhelming. It's
clear to everybody who looks at it. Get a clue.

>Finally, if anyone on this list knows how to contact
>Mr. Barnes, I would appreciate the information.

Hey, knowing what little that I know of Barnes now, I'd say he's
going to come looking for you!

>More to follow...

More b.s. I'm sure. I'll be sure to wear my thigh high fly
fishing boots next time.

>Michael Corbin
>ParaNet Information Service, Inc.
>303-863-0484 (Voice and FAX)

Jack Hudson, Publisher True.X-File.News

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com