UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 18

Re: Who is Jerome Clark?

From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 19:24:00 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 21:48:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Who is Jerome Clark?

>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Who is Jerome Clark?
>Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 10:42:49 PDT

<snip>

>It is unfair, not to mention false, to characterize Stan Friedman
>-- or Donald Keyhoe, for that matter; Mr. Brookesmith also
>mentioned him in the same breath -- as a conspiracy theorist.
>Stan's view, like Keyhoe's (and my own, for that matter, at least
>on some days), is that a small official group of individuals with
>the proper clearances and need to know is holding significant UFO
>secrets.  Stan was an early and forceful critic of the real
>conspiracy theorists (Lear, Cooper, and their ilk), who conjure
>up a Secret Government not only hiding UFO truths but controlling
>the world.

<snip>

All well and good, Jerry, but no one, you and Friedman included,
has ever explained how this "small official group of
individuals" would operate in reality. Or, for that matter, how
it could have remained small in light of so much "significant
UFO secrets" (Roswell crash, possible bodies, and dare I say
abductions?) to withhold. Friedman at least admits that he
believes ET wreckage was recovered 50 years ago at Roswell,
bodies possibly included, and that something very much like
MJ-12 arose in its wake.

Do you believe in MJ-12, even if only rhetorically, as the small
group of individuals withholding significant UFO secrets, and if
so, isn't that pretty much the definition of a conspiracy to
cover-up and withhold?

But how could bodies and recovered ET technology be limited to
such a small official group of individuals with the proper
clearances and need to know? If you had this sort of secret in
your possession, you would bring in the people necessary to
ultimately solve the problem, no matter how many were required,
just as happened with the Manhattan Project. You wouldn't keep
the investigating (or, rather, "knowledgeable") group small just
*because* the evidence was so monumental in its importance. Just
the opposite.

In fact, if anything remotely resembling
Roswell-as-half-advertized had actually happened, there would be
no way that a small official group of individuals could clamp a
lid on anything -- because they could never be sure that another
Roswell wouldn't happen the next month or year anywhere in the
country or the world, thus invalidating the "secret." They would
had to have had at least a local contingency plan for any
possible scenario, say, the crash of another UFO in downtown
Cincinatti or Cleveleand, as opposed to the conveniently remote
desert Southwest.

The number of those that would have to be brought into the know,
even if only a partial-know, grows exponentially from the moment
Roswell as a UFO crash is admitted as a reality. You can't just
recover real ET wreckage (and possible bodies) and say, wow,
this is really something, we better let only a small official
group of individuals in on this.

President Truman: "OK, we'll let 12 people in on this, but no
more!"

General Twining: "I think we're going to need 24 if we're ever
going to find out what really happened and what this stuff does.
Another 12 if we want the bodies thoroughly analyzed."

Truman: "But that's 36. I don't want this to get out."

Twining: "But what if one crashes in downtown Cincinatti?
Shouldn't we have a contingency plan?"

Truman: "OK, you can tell one more person, but no more. That's
thirteen already!"

Twining: "You're the president! Thirteen it is, then."

Yes, this is exaggerated rhetoric. On the other hand, so is the
whole notion that the news of repeated extraterrestrial
visitations on a worldwide basis could be neatly limited solely
to a small official group of individuals, especially over a
50-year time span. (After all, who tells *them* that something
new has happened? And what does the small group do with said
news -- sit on it? Do they scramble interceptors -- to look for
what, the secerets they're already concealing?)

I'm sorry, but this absurd scenario simply won't wash. And I say
that only after having run it through my own washer several
times in expectation that it might. It just grows weaker with
every rinse cycle. Run it through the dryer and it virtually
evaporates into thin (hot) air.

There is an alternative, though, in the form of Corso's The Day
After Roswell. He explains quite neatly how a small official
group of individuals managed to not only maintain, but exploit,
"significant UFO secrets." But perhaps you believe that scenario
as well? No?

Dennis



[ 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