UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 17

Re: Military Retirees & Secrecy

From: judithdale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:45:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:11:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Retirees & Secrecy


>Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:53:01 -0600
>From: Dave Vetterick <veterick@ix.netcom.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Military Retirees & Secrecy

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>>Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:13:13 EST
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Military Retirees & Secrecy

>>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:50:20 +0000
>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Military Retirees & Secrecy

>>>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:46:28 -0600
>>>From: Dave Vetterick <veterick@ix.netcom.com>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Military Retirees & Secrecy
>
>>>>Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:32:40 -0800
>>>>From: Judith Dale <judithdale@earthlink.net>
>>>>To: UFO UpDates-Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>Subject: Military Retirees & Secrecy

>EBK and List :

>EBK evidently felt otherwise. In posting my message to the list
>he snipped Judith's post right after her opening paragraph.
>
>Perhaps I should have written my reply differently. I apologize.
>However, the snip to Judith's message coming where it did has
>caused some confusion which I'll attempt to clarify while at the
>same time responding to Kevin and Roger's posts also noted
>above.

Yes, I've noticed the confusion. Actually, its been interesting
to watch information get skewed simply because its taken out of
context.

>Here is the pertinent part of Judith's message:

>>The experience that I have is with my partner's dad, who is a
>>retired Lt. Colonel, USAF intelligence. In response to questions
>>about UFO's and the involvement of the Air Force, he will only
>>say that alot has gone on and to talk about it would put him,
>>and us, in terrible danger. This doesn't sound like a fear of
>>loosing his pension, to me. This is a man who started in the
>>Army and became Air Force in 1947. The Air Force subsequently
>>paid for him to get a graduate degree in communications at Yale.

>She goes on to speak about a notebook with drawings of Greys
>which I'm sure we'd all love to see. She concludes with:

>>We have all found his refusal to tell us anything to be
>>incredibly frustrating. He is now in his 80's, but insists that
>>what he knows will go to the grave with him. He is adamant that
>>it is not safe for him to speak. Fear of lost pension? I don't
>>think so. This is also a man who was rah, rah military, and now
>>vehemently hates the military. Curious.

>Kevin, my original point was NOT questioning or belittling the
>man's right to continue to honor his oath if he so chooses, as
>seems to be your impression of what I was saying.

>My question was and still is...What is the basis for the fear
>that if he talked it would put him, AND HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, in
>"terrible danger", and "it is not SAFE for him to speak".

>This implies bodily harm would come about if he spoke about 30
>year old UFO related military secrets.

>Roger, no offense, but suggesting the government and military is
>going to inflict illegal bodily harm over this and could get
>away with it, as you said they likely did over the Contra
>dealings, is far fetched and bordering on paranoia in my
>opinion.

>Intimidation is a tool, but to suggest in this day and time that
>the military could threaten anything other than putting a person
>in Ft. Leavenworth much less illegal bodily harm to a person's
>family, and get away with it just isn't realistic.

>Judith said this gentleman now "vehemently hates the military".
>So the obvious conclusion she makes herself is that its not the
>oath keeping him silent, but the fear of bodily harm.

>What was the nature of the threat, and who made it?

Ofcourse, we don't know the nature of the threat, or who made
it. The sense of family members is not so much that the danger
is from "bodily harm" by agents of the military, as it is some
bigger threat.

>I've seen this claim of fear tossed around many times but there
>never is any elaboration of the exact nature of the this
>physical threat. I'm not questioning Judith's or anyone's
>integrity. Just asking for details of this threat.

FYI, I don't feel that my integrity has been challenged. Quite
frankly, I'm clueless about the details of the threat, because
Bill isn't telling us anymore than he has already. I just know
that he was a Lt. Colonel in Air force Intelligence, responsible
for a good deal of the Pacific Northwest.

The threat may not have been one of "bodily harm". For all we
know, the danger may be in some threat to the human
socio/cultural/political paradigm.

>If I were illegally threatened this way by the military, or any
>REAL government agency I'd be on CNN and MSNBC within the hour.


I don't think it serves any of us  to make assumptions about
what the threats involve.

Suffice to say, they were made and those of us who've not had to
take secrecy vows, won't know the nature of the threat, unless
one who does know tells us. In addition, I am quite comfortable
with my personal truths, gained from several years of life
experience. I don't feel any urgency to have the government, or
anyone else, validate my truth. I would like to know what the
government, or extra-government is doing about the intruders.
Ofcourse, the fact is, they may not be able to do anything, so
it falls to the rest of us.

Judith Dale


[ 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