UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 16

Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 10:11:40 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 09:26:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches - Randle

>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:28:53 -1000
>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:37:10 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:07:21 -1000
>>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:55:40 EDT
>>>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>>>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>>Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:06:56 -1000
>>>>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

First, let me apologize for the delay. I had another assignment
arise and just had no Internet capability while out of pocket. I
am ready to pick up the gauntlet again.


>>This presupposes that the testimonial evidence from the
>>Disclosure Project and the documentary evidence in the MJ-12
>>documents can be trusted. I'm suggesting that neither source can
>>be trusted and therefore any reliance on them as a basis to
>>argue for a hard cover up is flawed in the beginning.

>I don't think it's helpful to use the concept of 'trust' in
>order to assess different sources of evidence, especially when
>it comes to whistleblowers. What we have are different sources
>of evidence which we analyse and rank according to a number of
>criteria, eg., whistleblowers, majestic documents, contactees,
>witnesses, etc. Some sources will receive a higher ranking than
>others and therefore higher degree of consideration. That means
>there's a need to be flexible. Using an either-or approch
>unnecessarily simplifies the process since it tries to reduce
>all sources into two categories that which we 'trust and that
>which we 'don't trust'. That's a methodological error and based
>on the mistaken emphasis on 'hard evidence'.

Rather than engage in semantics here, I'll just change the word
trust to reliable. I will instead write, "This presupposes that
the testimonial evidence from the Disclosure Project and the
documentary evidence in the MJ-12 documents is reliable. I'm
suggesting that neither source is reliable and therefore any
reliance on them as a basis to argue for a hard cover up is
flawed in the beginning."

And I have no objection to creating a reliability scale for this
alleged evidence of the hard cover up. But the point remains. If
the MJ-12 and the Disclosure project are unreliable, or have a
low credibility, then using them to support your argument
actually weakens it.


>>I was very interested in those claims, talked to Dean and Stone,
>>and even received a letter from Corso's doctor and had
>>conversations with Robert Brines, his co-author. I looked for
>>corroboration of their tales but found them wanting. It is
>>interesting that their lack of proof for their claims is
>>considered proof by others. Their records have been altered,
>>their documentation has been stolen, and they have been
>>intimidated by this vast conspiracy to silence them.
>>Interestingly they suggest the government would stop at nothing
>>to silence them, and Stone even talks about being taken from his
>>home with weapons pointed at him, but he's still alive to make
>>his charges" all with no evidence that any of this happen.

>I can see your point and agree that this is a major problem for
>UFO/exopolitical researchers. When you have well credentialled
>individuals coming forth with extraordinary claims with no hard
>evidence to back them up, then one can say there's no proof.

I'm not even sure you can call some of these individuals "well-
 credentialled." The claim, by implication, is that anyone with
a military record has good credentials. Military service does
not convey some sort of extraordinary reliability on an
individual. We need something more before we begin to accept so
many outrageous claims (and yes, I used the word outrageous here
on purpose).

>Furthermore, when researchers encounter claims that the 'proof'
>has been removed, of intimidation of whistleblowers, of
>corroborating witness harassment, etc., having occurred, then
>this presents testimonial evidence that a 'hard cover' up is

What evidence do you have that "proof" has been removed? How
in the world could you ever prove something like that? In the
various records I have seen (Corso and Stone to mention just two)
there is no evidence they have been altered. Instead, we have
documents that suggest that both men have been less than honest
with researchers.

But, since their claims are not borne out by the record, you now
suggest that those discrepancies are evidence of the hard cover
up. I suggest they are evidence that the men are less than

>What you have provided is an example of the kind of
>testimonial evidence that whistleblowers such as Stone give of
>being physically threatened for revealing information. You ask,
>where's the physical evidence or proof that Stone was harasssed,
>and physical evidence removed? I think it should be clear that
>if such a process is occuring, as Stone and other whistleblowers
>suggest, such hard evidence will hard to find. Yet we have the
>whistleblower's testimony, their credibilty in terms of service
>records and responsible positions, and other information they
>may provide substantiating both their claims about ETs, and
>their claims of being harassed.

So, once again, we're required to fall back to the point that
their testimony is reliable because of their long service. They
need to offer nothing in the way of independent corroboration
because such corroboration would be difficult to find, and that
the lack of corroboration is, in fact, evidence that they are
telling the truth. Talk about a circular argument.

>I have made a case that a 'hard cover up' is an underlying
>premise that needs to be considered by the UFO researcher. This
>is the most logical conclusion of the overwhelming evidence that
>the government has initiated a cover up, and secretly
>institutionalised a process for dealing with UFO/ET affairs. I
>think if you use a polititical science methodology similar to
>the social contract theory advocated by John Rawls in a Theory
>of Justice, you will find that the end result of a rational
>decision making process for a set of rational decision makers is
>a secretly institutionalised process for managing ET/UFO affairs
>since the underlying premise is that the UFO/ET issues presents
>the most dire national security threat confronting the US and
>other countries. That's the most logical outcome of a purely
>rational process which supports my contention that an a 'hard
>cover up' exists. That means that when whistleblowers such as
>Stone discuss aspects of the 'hard cover up', physical threats,
>etc., then these are consistent with the premise that a 'hard
>cover up' is a logical policy response to the ET/UFO presence.
>This doesn't prove their claims, but it enables us to seriously
>consider them and use them in conducting an exopolitical
>analysis, despite the absence of proof.

So we argue in a circle again. The fact there is no proof is
proof that the cover up exists. No proof can be found because it
has been removed.


>>>Corso begins his book, The Day After Roswell, by clearly stating
>>>that he was a Lt-Colonel who headed up the Foreign Technology
>>>Desk for a two year period in the 1960s. I don't have access to
>>>his military records so I can't confirm or deny what happened
>>>upon his retirement and the details of his promotion.


>>Yes, but he was asked why he was identified as a colonel on the
>>cover and rather than saying that his publisher made an error,
>>he said that he had been promoted to colonel in the reserve on
>>his retirement. Again, there is no evidence this is true. In his
>>proposal for his book he identifies himself as a colonel and not
>>a lieutenant colonel.

>>And even worse, the first line of his book suggests he was the
>>chief of the Foreign Technology Division for two years when his
>>record shows that it was for only 90 days. I certainly hope you
>>aren't going to suggest that someone altered the record by
>>reducing his time with the Foreign Technology Division.

>>In his proposal, he included some sample chapters including
>>something he called a "Precede" in which he writes about his UFO
>>experiences, and then signs it, "P.J. Corso, Colonel, USA, Ret."
>>Again, he just wasn't a colonel though he represented himself as

>I think his long military service record is the basis of his
>credibility, and he rightly claims he was a Lt-Col when he
>became chief of the Foreign Technology Division. The absence of
>evidence of his promotion from Lt-Col to Col upon retirement is
>something that I consider to be a red herring designed to shift
>attention from the thrust of his claims concerning his role in
>the dissemination of ET technology. Absense of evidence doesn't
>mean it didn't happen.

First, I believe that inflation of one's credentials, such as
claiming a higher rank, is significant. In the recent past
people have lost their jobs for claiming positions and education
they didn't have. Nearly every week we read about someone who
has done just that. Corso did that by claiming to be a colonel
when he was a lieutenant colonel.

Second, this absence of evidence rule doesn't apply here. It was
Corso who made the claim and it is Corso's responsibility to
prove it, not mine to disprove it. In some cases absence of
evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

What you are suggesting here is that we ignore a serious claim
by Corso that has not been proven to be accurate. You are
suggesting that such a claim is of little importance while I
suggest that it suggests something about the man's character.

>There is also the possibility that his
>service record was purposely altered to create some
>Inconsistencies - but of course in your ideal world of UFO
>scientific research using empirical methods, such Machiavellian
>methods don't happen.

The real question would be why alter his records about this?
There is no purpose in it. Yet, if he was promoted upon
retirement, he would have been given such records and there
would be photographs of the promotion, yet none exist. All he
could offer was a lame excuse about the situation, which, in and
of itself is quite telling.


>>>As far as I'm aware, Corso never claimed to be a member of MJ-
>>>12, he just referred to its existence and composition.

>>In the proposal for his book he writes, "recounts the continuing
>>reports of UFO activity that passed through Eisenhower's White
>>House, when the author was on assignment there, to the staff of
>>MJ-12." That sounds like a fairly blatant claim that Corso was a
>>member of MJ-12" a claim that did not make it into the final
>>version of his book.

>You have misread what the passage suggests. Corso informed us
>that he served on the staff of MJ-12 when he was at the White
>House. I think that MJ-12, is similar to a Congressional
>Committee, e.g., the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that
>has staffers appointed to serve the Commitee. If one is on
>assignment to the staff of a Senate Committee, for example, then
>that doesn't make one a Senator, one is just a staff member.

You might have missed the point. He claimed he worked for MJ-12.
He claimed he was on the staff. While he might not have been one
of the twelve, he was making a claim about his association with
MJ-12 that was not true. Here is a significant discrepancy that
you have decided to ignore with some analogy that doesn't quite

>>>Corso discussed the circumstances surrounding his use of Strom
>>>Thurman foreword in an interview with Michael Lindeman - see:


>>>Corso claims he told Thurman of the UFOs he discussed in his
>>>book and that Thurman nevertheless agreed to write the foreword
>>>for the Day After Roswell and understood it was about UFOs. It's
>>>likely that during his employment service for the former Senator
>>>he discretely divulged some of the projects he worked on despite
>>>his alleged vow to Lt Gen Trudeau to not go public. Thurman may
>>>have written the foreward as a favor to a former close advisor
>>>but once his staffers discovered what was in Corso's book, they
>>>quickly rescinded permission for the foreword to be used.

>>Yet in his proposal letter he said that Thurmond had written a
>>glowing introduction to his book "I Walked with Giants: My
>>Career in Military Intelligence." That introduction was then
>>used for his Roswell book" before Thurmond and his aides
>>insisted that it be removed. Switching the story and the
>>introductions around does not speak well of Corso.

>As I said earlier, Corso spoke to Thurman about UFOs and
>Informed him that was the subject of his new book. Just because
>Thurman's aides persuaded Thurman to withdraw the preface,
>doesn't mean Corso was being disingenous here.

No, it is quite clear in his proposal for his book that the
introduction written by Thurman was for a different book. Why is
there no mention of Roswell or UFOs in that introduction? Why
were Thurman and his staff so outraged when they learned the
truth, if the Senator knew this in the beginning? It certainly
does mean that Corso was being disingenuous here. How many times
do we need to find something like this before you begin to think
that maybe the guy just wasn't who he claimed to be?

>>>As for the veracity of the photos in Corso's books, I don't know
>>>where you got your information that they are "well known fakes".
>>>There may be considerible controversy about them, but that
>>>doesn't make them fakes. I don't know about Kaufman and the
>>>incident you are referring to. As for the alleged convoy through
>>>Ft Riley, the 'friend' was in fact the sergeant on guard duty
>>>and had peered into the contents of the boxes he was guarding.
>>>The Sergeant had some time invited Corso to join a bowling team
>>>so that was the basis of their relationship. Corso was a Major
>>>at the time and the Sergeant an NCO, so it's a bit of a stretch
>>>to say he was Corso's friend.

>>The picture in his book, labeled, "Lt. Col. Corso was never able
>>to confirm the veracity of the following purported UFO
>>surveillance photos, which were in Army Intelligence files as
>>support material for the R&D project to harvest Roswell Alien
>>technology for military purposes." The picture under that
>>caption is of a domed disk flying over some hills. Ed Ruppelt
>>identified it as a 1935 Ford hubcap. Look magazine, in 1966,
>>identified it as a hoax and provided the name of the
>>photographer who admitted it was a hoax. Guy B. Marquand, Jr.,
>>said that he was sorry to disillusion people and that "I was 21
>>years old at the time and just having fun."

>I recall being told a story by Wendelle Stevens about George
>Adamski responding to Coral Lorenson's abrasive question 'how
>did you do it? (fake his flying saucer photos'). Adamski said
>that he picked up a hub cap and threw it into the air, and then
>took some pictures. Lorenson said 'thanks' and then proceeded to
>condemn Adamski as a fraud. He was pulling her leg but she took
>him seriously. Corso would undoubtedly have known about the 1966
>Look article and Ruppelt's asssessment of the photo, but still
>went ahead to include it in his book. Personally, I'd say if
>Corso was suggesting it was real despite the Look article and
>Ruppelt's assessment, I'd be inclined to accept Corso's
>judgement over someone who alleges to be the photographer
>recanting his testimony. It seems you have more faith in a self-
>confessed liar "having fun" than the judgement of a former Lt
>Col in the US Army.

Let me get this straight. We have the editors of LOOK saying the
picture is faked? and they have no reason to make that claim
unless they believe it. We have Ed Ruppelt claiming it was
faked? and we have no reason to suspect his honesty, especially
when we look at his record as the Chief of Blue Book. And we
have the guy who took the picture saying he faked it. Given all
that, you'd rather believe that Corso was right? This I just
don't get.

And yes, in this case, I have more faith in the photographer,
the editors of LOOK and Ed Ruppelt than I have in Corso. (And I
won't even mention the background of Wendelle Stevens.)

>>It was Kaufmann and Corso on Coast-to-Coast talking about their
>>experiences with these highly classified projects, spilling
>>their guts for the world. What struck me was that Corso never
>>disagreed with Kaufmann in a conflict of points, but always
>>bowed to him because Kaufmann claimed to have been on the
>>original retrieval. Kaufmann has been found to be a fraud,
>>inventing his tale. Seems to me that Corso would have known
>>that, had he been who he claimed to be.

>I don't know enough about Kaufmann to respond about his
>legitimacy as a researcher. I don't see why you would assume
>that if Kaufman were a fraud, Corso should have known about it.
>Corso left military service in 1963 and apparently ceased to
>have a further role in the world of UFOs, crash retrievals. As
>far as I can tell, Corso claims to have played a role in
>disseminating ET technology, he never claimed to possess
>omniscience about UFO researchers and witnesses.

Because Corso, is he was who he claimed, he would have seen the
holes in the Kaufmann tale. But rather than challenge him, Corso
bowed to him. It suggests that Corso had no sort of
extraordinary knowledge.

>>I read Corso's claim about his friend and understood that Corso
>>was a major and the friend a sergeant who had invited Corso to
>>bowl with his team. However, it's also a stretch to understand
>>how a convoy leaving Roswell would pass close to Ft. Riley on
>>its way to Wright Field in Ohio, or how an NCO, a sergeant of
>>the guard, would be out among the classified boxes or why he
>>would be digging through them. This is a serious breach of
>>security, not to mention the fact that the boxes should have
>>been in a locked area with guards posted outside it, not inside,
>>going through the material.

>I think that this was the first time that an EBE had been
>shipped by the US Army/Air Force. Their security procedures were
>probably lax to begin with, but later amended to the standards
>you suggest.

Oh, please. Maybe lax. Amended later? They had been dealing with
classified material for years. Take out the alien body and put
in, oh, I don't know, transport of the Norden Bombsite during
World War II and you have the same thing. Transportation of
highly classified material over the road. So, the procedures
wouldn't have been lax? except in Corso's warped version of
the truth. (And yes, I used the word warped on purpose.)

>>I suppose it will do no good to point out that the FBI (another
>>of those hated government institutions that lie about everyone)
>>noted, about Corso, "He has been a thorn in our side because of
>>self-initiated rumors, idle gossip and downright lies he has
>>spread to more or less perpetuate his own reputation as an
>>intelligence expert."

>I agree, it doesn't help your case to reference the FBI as a
>truthful source for the credibility of Corso.

Clearly you don't recognize sarcasm when you read it. Here is
just one more assessment that suggests Corso was not only
telling tales about his UFO experiences, but he had a history of
doing that about a variety of subjects. In those other cases,
everyone recognized what he was. In the UFO field, he becomes a
"whistleblower" to be acknowledged rather than just one more
crank with a wild story.

>>Corso claimed in a sworn statement that one of his Army
>>assignments had been to the National Security Council during the
>>Eisenhower Administration and that he attended NSC meetings.
>>Stan Friedman checked with the Eisenhower Library and was told
>>that such claims were false. Of course, this is just another
>>government agency changing the records.

>It's very possible that the Eisenhower Library lacked records to
>substantiate Corso's claims. This absence could be explained in
>a number of ways, incomplete records, Stan not having access to
>the right files, altered records, etc. This doesn't prove that
>Corso's claims were false, they just couldn't be substantiated.
>I get the sense you are fishing for ways to discredit Corso, and
>want to avoid looking at possibilities that migh explain some of
>the discrepancies in his testimony. Corso's military credentials
>are impressive, he worked as the head of the Army's Foreign
>Technology Department, worked as a Congressional Aid to Senator
>Thurman, and has made extraordinary claims about ET technology.
>I don't see why analysing the (exo)political implications of
>Corso's testimony is so strongly resisted by members of the
>forum who focus on whatever minor inconsistency they can find in
>Corso's military records or statement. It seems you advocate
>focusing on the ABC's of UFO research, and don't want to reach
>the X,Y,Z, where exopolitical analysis begins.

Yeah, the Eisenhower Library lacked the records to substantiate
Corso's claim, not because those records were incomplete, but
because they never existed in the first place. Here is another
significant discrepancy that you choose to ignore by saying
maybe, possibly, perhaps, but have no evidence to even begin a
simple investigation, other than the word of a man who has been
caught several times making false claims.


>I think your style is similar to a court room attorney who wants
>to shift from an examination of substantive issues to witness
>credibility. You point out some minor inconsistencies which lead
>to your evaluation that the witness is not reliable, and that
>their testimony should be discarded. That's a time honored legal
>strategy that works well enough in a judicial system that
>operates on transparency and legitimate legal processes, but is
>seriously inadequate for whistleblower testimonies in a national
>security environment where the bulk of hard evidence is
>classified, and where there is ample reason to believe a 'hard
>cover up' is underway. I have seen no evidence that you are
>willing to explore the implications of the whistleblower
>testimonies offered by Corso since you offer as the threshold
>for such consideration satisfaction of minor inconsistencies
>that I and likely many others view to be red herrings.

And I have seen no evidence that you will even consider cogent
arguments if they don't conform to your already preconceived
notions and rigid belief structure. Any evidence to the contrary
is dismissed by suggesting my style is similar to a courtroom
attorney, as if this is something bad. But the truth is, if
someone lied about his credentials, made false claims, and
offered no proof for his tales in one arena, then we can expect
the same in another. I offer the evidence for this and you
simply dismiss it out of hand.


>>Now, we have Stone carrying some with a top secret cover sheet
>>through his living room. That is pure showboating because you
>>just don't transport top secret material that way. He was attempting,
>>through this little show, to prove how important he was. It was
>>the same thing, pointing out the sticker on his car and suggesting
>>that officers had blue stickers and he had a blue sticker. It was an
>>attempt to increase his credibility by suggesting he was something
>>that he was not. Neither of these points is trivial, as you suggest.

>You are overreaching in your inferences here. An individual's
>behavior when dealing with classified material may be influenced
>by a range of factors that may account for his behavior. Just
>because Stone was handling what he claimed to be classified
>material in a way you consider to be cavalier, doesn't mean it
>wasn't what he claimed it to be. Whistleblowers by definition
>are mavericks who are dissatisfied with rules, procedures and
>policies that restrict information on ETs/UFOs.

An individual's behavior when dealing with classified material
is influenced by the law. If Stone was carrying classified
material (meaning top secret) material through his house, then
he was going to jail and these hard cover up guys would need to
do nothing other than charge him with mishandling classified
material. Look what happened to the guy in Los Alamos who they
just suspected of mishandling classified material.

>As for pointing out to you the color of the sticker on his car,
>there may be a number of explanations. Stone may have been
>alluding to preferential treatment he was receiving due to his
>alleged background. Again, I see the same pattern in your
>evaluation of Stone, pointing out minor inconsistencies in his
>story and claiming that when you add them all up, he has no
>credibility. The implication being that we shouldn't consider
>his testimony as anything upon which UFO/Exopolitics researchers
>might benefit in understanding alleged crash retrievals.

No, Stone was attempting to tell me that he was really an
officer, not knowing that I understood the system. This is a
significant embellishment that goes to the credibility of the

>While I understand that there is a need to scrutinise the
>background of whistleblowers in order to assess whether they are
>telling the truth, we need to balance this scrutinity with an
>appreciation of the significance of their claims and the
>likelihood that they may be subject to various forms of
>harassment, discrediting, etc., from the 'hard cover up'. There
>is for example the case of an independent Canadian researcher
>who was threatened for covering Stone's story, and arranging for
>documents Stone forwarded to be circulated in Canada (see
>http://www.rense.com/ufo6/terrorist.htm). That is corroboration
>that Stone had information that went far beyond what a typist or
>clerical administrator would have after a 22 year service record
>as you have suggested, and helps establish his credibility as a
>whistleblower revealing information on crash retreivals. I think
>your evaluation of Stone is unbalanced and ignores evidence that
>he is being subjected to harassment, threats, and discrediting.
>This makes your focus on inconsistencies in his service record,
>behavior and testimony questionable.

I looked at the story and it is, once again, allegations with no
sort of evidence. I can point you to any number of people who
believe what Stone said, but none of them can offer any evidence
that it is true.


>>Why would Dean be on an intelligence briefing team? He had no
>>special training for that. His records show that from mid-1963
>>to mid-1967 he was at NATO as a master sergeant assigned as the
>>Chief Clerk Language Service Branch which is hardly the same as
>>being an intelligence analyst, a position for which he was not
>>trained. His record shows no assignments as an intelligence
>>analyst. There is nothing classified about the general training,
>>and in fact, for those who have access to the Army's Distance
>>Learning Training Facility (meaning it's on-line), training for
>>an intelligence analyst is available. So, if Dean's claim was
>>accurate, the training would be in his record, but if the
>>assignment was classified, it would show a generic assignment.

>Dean claims that he received a "Cosmic Top Secret" clearance
>while serving on the briefing team for the SACEUR. "Cosmic" is a
>security classification that likely refers to a
>compartmentalised program set up by the US Army and NATO to deal
>with UFO/ET related matters.

No, it doesn't. It is a NATO classification that distinguishes
it from top secret material originated in other locations. It
suggests nothing about UFO/ET matters.

>It would be reasonable to conclude
>that someone receiving such a "Cosmic" classification and having
>access to the documents requiring that classification would have
>their service record not include the specialized training
>required for the performance of their duties.

No it wouldn't. There is nothing about the training that would
demand that it be hidden. As I have tried to explain, the
training is of a generic nature that provides no clues as to
specific assignments, especially when those assignments might be
classified. A Special Forces soldier will have his record show
that training, even if he is then assigned to a clandestine
operation. If a soldier makes a claim about such a clandestine
operation, but there is no training on his record, then his
claim should be suspect.

>That would help
>ensure operational security and guard against potential
>whistleblowers. His military record, as you say, may not include
>the specialized training he required to be an intelligence
>analyst, but this was likely due to the nature of his
>appointment and the security classification it required. I think
>your assumption of transparency in military records when it
>comes to the true nature of the classified assignments and
>training of servicemen is mistaken.

>>I didn't say that The Assessment was a hoax designed to keep
>>people awake. I said that Dean claimed in Roswell that he was on
>>duty at 2 in the morning in NATO's War Room and was having
>>trouble staying awake. Then, in a colossal breach of security,
>>"an Air Force bird colonel thumped it down on my desk" In an
>>interview published in the winter 1995-96 issue of UFO Update AZ
>>magazine, Dean went a little farther saying, "this Air Force
>>controller, a bird colonel" pulled this thing out of the vault
>>and he said, =C3=A2?~Here, read this.' This will wake you up."

>>So, in this version, the document was completed, in the vault,
>>and was given to Dean by an Air Force officer who wanted him to
>>stay awake. A very cavalier way to treat top secret material.

>>I am surprised that (a) the vault was opened that late at night,
>>(b) the Air Force colonel could just waltz in and remove
>>whatever he wanted, and (c) he would gave this thing to a master
>>sergeant for late night and exciting reading.

>>So, according to Dean here, and to Dean's assignment at NATO, he
>>had no need-to-know.

>OK, so you are not saying that the Assessment is a hoax, but
>that the commanding officer nonchalently threw a copy Dean's way
>to keep him awake. So the implications are that either the
>commanding officer was conducting a massive breach of security
>(unlikely); or that the Assessment was a hoax (you claim not to
>be saying this); or that you have mistakenly contextualized the
>process by which Dean was given access to the Assemement. Of the
>three, I think the third implication is more accurate.

No, I said it wasn't a hoax designed to keep people awake. And I
agree that we wouldn't have an officer cavalierly giving Dean a
copy to read to keep him awake (Dean's claim on more than one
occasion). Actually the most likely scenario here is that Dean
invented The Assessment and no such document exists.

But you keep making allegations but offer no evidence to support
these allegations. In the real world we find that sort of
evidence because no matter how good the agency is that wants to
destroy evidence, they can never get it all. There are ways to
prove the truth, which is why we are able to prove some of the
things we can. But you have an omniscient organization out there
that can find and destroy every shred of evidence to prove the
whistleblowers honest. The more outrageous the tale, the more
quickly you sign on.


[ Next 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