UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 21

Re: Secrets & Conspiracies

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 11:52:12 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 18:34:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Secrets & Conspiracies

>Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:38:07 -0300
>From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Secrets & Conspiracies

>The analogy with Andromda is a false one. Andromeda is there,
>many telescopes are available and we all know where to look.

It's not an analogy, Stan, so much as an example. If you don't
like the example of Andromeda, then simply substitute something
like the "night skies." Vallee's point was that the AF couldn't
prevent people investigating something that was beyond their
control. That's not the same as saying the AF can't control
whatever data they've collected on their own; Vallee was saying
that didn't stop us from gathering our own best data.

By way of another example -- also not an analogy -- quite a good
civilian investigation, with instrumentation and photographs,
was mounted at the Hessdalen Valley. Similarly, you are free to
make what you will of the many, many pictures emanating out of
Gulf Breeze over the years. Point is, the AF isn't down there
telling everyone to stay off the beaches and inside their

>We don't have access to the classified data obtained by
>satellites, by sophisticated radar, by aircraft with EM
>monitoring equipment, nor to the data obtained by NRO, NSA,
>laboratories testing wreckage evaluating bodies, etc.

I seriously doubt if NSA has any laboratory facilities in which
bodies and wreckage could be tested. Ditto, the NRO. Chemical and
biological analysis isn't in their job description --
intelligence gathering and interpretation is.

I also doubt that the AF -- or anyone else -- can control where
UFOs crash.
Thus, if one were to slam into the Emprie State building tomorrow
-- having taken the long way from Linda's apartment back to the
Hudson River -- it seems pretty safe to say that the cat would be
out of the bag and that there would be little the AF or anyone
else could do about it, including covering up the fact, or the
origin and nature of the fact.

As for certain satellite data, you are aware that a few
scientists from the University of Arizona, I believe, were
allowed to look at some of that classified data recently and
disovered that asteroids explode in the upper atmosphere much
more frequently than previously supposed.

In the main, though, these guys are designed not to detect and
track everything in sight, in fact, they are programmed to ignore
most of what they see the better to concentrate on ICBM launch
signatures, which fall within fairly characteristic parameters.
Thus, it's possible that even if you had the entire print-out of
a "fast walker," you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell what a
fast walker was. I admit we have no way of knowing at the moment,
but it's at least arguable that the spy satellites themselves
don't really "care."

You must also be aware that the world has changed drastically in
the wake of the collpase of the Cold War. If you've got the
money, you can already buy Soviet satellite pictures on the WWW.
And a new generation of civilian "spy" satellites will soon be in
orbit, as well. Yes, they won't be quite as good as the
military's best, at the same time, they should be quite
sufficient for capturing many UFOs, especially the big guys like
the flying triangles and wings, but your "average" 30-foot
daylight disk as well.

If you followed up the links, recently posted here, to the
lightning strike detection network, you know that all sorts of
air and ground-based monitoring of geophysical and atmospheric
phenomena is presently taking place, without an iota of AF
knowledge or oversight control.

Similarly, more and more governments and commercial entities are
acquiring significant radar and air traffic control systems, over
which our AF "cover-up" office has no control whatsoever. I
believe the Chilean AF recently announced its own UFO agency, to
name but the most drastic example.

In short, UFOs are increasingly running out of places to hide,
Stan, just as the AF is rapidly running out of effective ways to
hide them, if they haven't already.

>There is an enormous difference between somebody standing gawking
>at the sky watching a UFO and the kind of information that I as a
>scientist want. There is instrumentation available, but nothing
>without a need to know.

>The analogy is false.

>Stan Friedman

No, Stan, it's not false, for the reasons stated above. If you
don't like the Andromeda example, simply substitute the sky
itself instead.

The sky has never been more monitored and less controlled than it
is now. There is no way that the AF has a monopoly on the UFO
data now, electronic or otherwise. Too many eyes in the sky.


[ 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