UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 15

Re: Sightings - Czarnik

From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:34:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:23:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Sightings - Czarnik


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:34:33 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Sightings - Czarnik

>Of course, that's why I differentiated this post by using the
>term "UFO whistle blowers". I do not believe that I suggested no
>whistle blowers of any kind had ever come forth and been
>punished for their actions by private corporations.

No you did not...

>The difference is that when someone works for a private
>corporation and blows a whistle, they can sue the company if
>they lose their benefits, assuming they have proof that they
>were singled out for retaliation. Therefore, it might be worth
>the risk since there is a recourse for the whistle blower.
>Sometimes they win, sometimes not. The corporation bean counters
>also look at the risk factor to determine if they want to pursue
>or settle or just stand back and see what happens.

Yes, that is true, but I think it depends on how deep the
company itself is involved with "sensitive projects," and
whether these projects are directed linked to the Military Black
Ops... If they are, the as you relate in the next paragraph, the
person is facing a "hard road to hoe.." <G> You didn't quite
phrase it that way, but it means the same thing.

>On the other hand, people working for the government are in a
>totally different situation since it's very difficult to
>successfully sue the US government for anything, even when you
>HAVE proof of wrong doing. Therefore, intimidation tactics and
>physical threats are more likely to be used since there's
>virtually nothing the victim can do about it. This person is
>facing a giant with endless physical, legal and monetary
>resources.

Yes, it is very difficult to sue the US Government and win, but,
it has been done...and it can be done again...but you just
better have the stuff to get it done.

>Relating to the above info you mentioned, is there any record of
>these woman's families suing the US government and successfully
>getting a judgement? I believe the info was, as you put it, a
>revelation since it had been covered up for decades by the
>government. I doubt if things have changed much, other than the
>government is much better at covering
>its tracks.

I didn't really follow up on that...but I know the information
is readily available to those who will take the time to check
it out...

In fact there may be people on this list who do know the answer
to this question.

>As you point out, these are just names. If there was any
>definitive proof that would turn the UFO world on its ear, we'd
>be talking about that in this post instead of the current topic.

Well, there very may have been "definitive proof" at some point,
but you can bet that by the time the powers that be, got though
with the story, it looked like something form "Mickey Mouse."
<G> I just don't know....

>Finally, I had offered:

>>>On the other hand, if someone DID have proof that would be
>>>damaging to the powers that be, then it's quite likely that the
>>>general public would never be allowed to even hear about that
>>>person's existence. In such a case, the whistle blower in
>>>question would have much bigger problems that "loss of pension",
>>>if you get my drift.


>>I would say that you are correct in your assumption here Roger.
>><G>

>Which assumption, Mike?

I was generally replying to both statments, but more especially
the last one..."the whistle blower in question would have much
bigger problems..."

Yes, indeed...

REgards, Mike

[ 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