UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Dec > Dec 3

Security Classifications [was: Frank Kaufman?]

From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 18:20:15 +1300 (NZDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:08:15 -0500
Subject: Security Classifications [was: Frank Kaufman?]


Greetings List

On 28th Novemember Stan Friedman wrote

 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:37:20 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

<snip>

 >I will have more to say about the claim I am told was made that
 >MJ-12 is a fraud once I see the program.

 >My paper noted above does point out that despite Jan Aldrich's
 >recent false claim that the GAO must have been mistaken, that
 >the GAO found examples of the use of TOP SECRET RESTRICTED on
 >documents from the same time frame as the Cutler Twining memo,
 >that they indeed had.

Stan,

I recall that Jan asked that you provide an "Independantly
Verifiable Copy" of such a Document containing "TOP SECRET
RESTRICTED" Classification.

Stan my enquiry to you (and Jan) is:

Have you provided Jan with such a document yet? - Or do you wish
to ignore this request and hope that it will go away?

Until then Stan your claim is nothing more than that - A claim
without any form of verifiable evidence

 >I also noted that not all TS documents have TS Control numbers,
 >again despite Jan's false claim to the contrary.

Again Stan:

Have you provided Jan with any "Independantly Verifiable Copy"
of such a document.

 >In Jan's defense I must note that his excellent security related
 >background seemed to relate to classified military documents not
 >to NSC, White House, Industrial classified documents, tc.

Stan:- it is obvious Jan has shown that you dont know as much
about security classifications as you often try and make out you
do (A little learning is a dangerous thing here)

You continue your barrage against Jan to imply that his background
knowledge doesnt cover "NSC, White House, Industrial classified
documents, etc."

Stan my question here is - What evidence do you have here that
your own knowledge is better (than Jan's or anyone elses) in
this area. Any attempt to claim that you have visited so many
archives etc you must come away with something to verify any
bold claims on "Security Classifications" etc.

Stan - so far I suggest "Claims - Many, Evidence - None"

You must remember that when you make such bold claims that there
are in fact other researchers out here (many on the "Updates
List") who are equally (or more) familar with "Security
Classifications" and "Archives Searches" etc.

In any "Court of Law" - Civil or Criminal the prosecuting agency
must be able to prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt"

In Ufology the sometimes quoted statement "The absence of
evidence is not the evidence of absence" is just a "slick catch
phrase" made by people who havent a scrap of evidence to support
their case.

I would certainly welcome your release (to Jan Aldrich and
others) of any "Independantly Verifiable Documents" as outlined
above.


Murray Bott

--
Email : murrayb@win.co.nz
Voice : 64-9-6345285
Snail : PO Box 27117, Mt Roskill, Auckland 1030, New Zealand


[ 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