UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 20

Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:24:24 EDT
Archived: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:06:51 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>From: Mary Castner <m.castner.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:09:04 -0500
>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

Right at the top I need to point out this is a pastiche of
errors, miscommunication, outright self-contradiction and
omission of key facts.

On July 15 MUFON offered Barry space in the MUFON Journal and
there is no mention of that in this post. Is that fair to
withhold that key piece of info? This confused post makes it
seem that Barry was denied a fair hearing, prevented from saying
his piece.

Yet Barry refused to present a paper to MUFON even though he was
free to do so (and he is free to present his own article in the
MUFON Journal)? Why is that? He apparently expected _me_ to read
aloud all his slanderous personal attacks and make them appear
to come from _me_ - so he could dodge the flak that would surely
come. If that was the intended plan that is pretty low down. I
was not about to be set up like that.

Also no mention is made of the fact that Barry had 5 months to
work on the article from January 2007 when the project was
initiated, to May 11, 2007, when he finally presented his draft.
I did not. I had 4 days from May 11 to May 15, and got an
extension of time because another MUFON speaker was much later
than we were (we ended up second to last but not last,
fortunately, as someone else had worse delays).

I was led to believe that Barry was covering both the AFOSI and
the greed-motivation explanations. Only when I was suddenly sent
his draft on May 11 did I discover that Barry had virtually
nothing representing my views or those of the other team members
all of whom were in agreement that it was an AFOSI operation,
and who were not in agreement with Barry or Mary. This was not
fair, and not only not fair but it left almost no time to try to
rectify it. Those who caused the time crunch, and concealed the
facts causing the delay (Barry's tendonitis), have no right to
complain about any problems caused.

Instead of fairly presenting my view, Barry expressed his own
view in only partial agreement with me that there was in fact an
official AFOSI disinformation operation against Paul Bennewitz
(contrary to this absurdly mistaken posting which denies it was
AFOSI at all), that it involved multiple AFOSI personnel (not
just Doty), and that only when it expanded beyond Bennewitz was
that done for odd personal motivations not explained in Barry's
paragraph setting this out (presumably the "greed" factor, with
no actual evidence anywhere of big bucks involved when MJ-12
surfaced in 1984). This is all set forth in Barry's May 11

Barry simply left my position, where we disagreed, entirely out
of his draft without telling me, then expected me to scramble to
research and write up my own position in just 4 days' time after
I got the news that Barry was only writing up his one-sided
presentation, leaving my side out and those of all the other
team members.

Barry did not share an advance copy of his draft before May 11,
only a partial MJ-12 history outline going to 1989 and going no
farther than 1989, with nothing at all mentioned about the
subject of the article - Pratt's secret tapes and files on MJ-
 12 - until Page 4! Obviously that was highly unsatisfactory and
required a complete rewrite.

But instead of even discussing Pratt's MJ-12 material on Page 4
there were two full pages devoted to Barry's 1989 CAUS article
on the Pratt-Moore-Doty book project, something already
published, not "new revelations," not brand new, before finally
getting to Pratt's files on Page 6! That was the partial draft
on April 29. I was never informed that Barry had a tendonitis
problem until then.

Suddenly I was presented with a meandering, undocumented, one-
 sided 20-page draft filled with libelous ad hominems just days
before the May 15 deadline, which had to be extended. Anyone
think that is reasonable? Anyone really believe that I could
generate hundreds of requests for missing documentation and for
explanations/corrections of gross errors in just 4 days' time
when the very effort to do so would have stopped my own forcibly
rushed research and writing stone-cold?

I made it clear that I was not going to put my name on an
article filled with undocumented assertions (not a single
footnote save one tiny half-line footnote Mary put in!) nor was
I going to read aloud such a scurrilous series of attacks on MJ-
12 proponents and even ETH advocates! I also explained that I
was flatly not going to just read the entire paper aloud, no one
likes seeing someone just read an article to them, that's bad
public speaking to say the least (speaking of the "money's
worth" slurs).

Barry's draft opened with a sneering attack on ETH "enthusiasts"
which was not even relevant to the Pratt files and MJ-12,
snidely commenting that the MJ-12 hoax was due to "UFO
enthusiasts grasping at straws to defend the possibility of
alien visitors to Earth." I don't accept ETH either but that is
just inflammatory and inappropriate and I didn't want my name on
that kind of unscholarly derision, which Barry put in the first
paragraph of his draft for me to read aloud at MUFON.

Talk about impolitic comments on what people were "paying" to
hear! You don't needlessly antagonize a largely pro-ETH audience
with snide comments about ETH, not even relevant anyway to Pratt
and MJ-12, it's just plain disrespectful and uncalled-for. I
shouldn't even have to explain this, the fact I do says
something about those forcing me to have to explain it.

I had to cut every libelous and outright offensive ad hominem
attack I found in Barry's draft, and there were many. This was
the so-called "gutting" of his "supporting" material - it was
not "supporting" _documentation_. It was sheer opinion by Barry
"supporting" his other factless opinions like his snide remark
about ETH "enthusiasts. It was not factual evidence, with no
documentation, no references, no nothing.

I had no time to write up hundreds of emails to investigate
Barry's innumerable statements of opinion with not a shred of
evidence "supporting" any of them (give me actual evidence from
Barry's May 11 draft to prove me wrong!). That would have taken
precious time away from writing up _my_ part of the article,
after getting sandbagged with this appalling mess at the last
minute right before the initial deadline.

Barry's draft should have been made available _months_ before
May 11 so that the hundreds of emails exchanged among team
members from March to May 11 could have been devoted to those
factual and legal issues in a timely fashion instead of at the
last minute when nothing could be done but to take it out. Only
when Barry condescended to share his full draft did I find out
that _none_ of the March-May email discussion that we did have
on other issues even appeared in his draft! He had incorporated
_none_ of it as he was supposed to have done. It was all a waste
of time.

I produced the most heavily footnoted article in MUFON history
(126 notes several of them almost a full page long each). Barry
had _zero_ footnotes despite his 5 months' time working on his
draft (again it was Mary who supplied Barry with a solitary
half-line footnote, not Barry himself).

When I asked for references such as the CAUS newsletter
supposedly recounting Moore's comment about "putting bread on
the table" I was given absolutely nothing, except a gross
contradiction of what Barry had written. I am still waiting for
a copy of the CAUS newsletter, date and page references. Where
is it?

Where is the reference to Doty admitting to Moore that he had
faked the Ellsworth document as I asked for, to document Barry's
bald assertion?? I asked for that but got nothing and I was
unable to find any such assertion except what Barry made up for
his article.

What Barry had drafted was misleading and false. He had written
that Moore made the "bread on the table" comment to both Larry
Fawcett and himself ("CAUS") then I find out only later, when I
removed this irrelevant and undocumented ad hominem, that this
was only hearsay from Fawcett alone, that Barry himself never
heard it from Moore. Why is it "irrelevant"? Because Barry's
draft blames Doty not Moore for MJ-12 hoaxing so why would
Moore's motivations be relevant? See below.

That alleged remark is Barry's entire "proof" of greed
motivation in hoaxing MJ-12, an out-of-context remark about
"putting bread on the table," something all of us have to do, so
that is proof of nothing illicit or improper. It is especially
irrelevant because Barry has abandoned his theory that Moore
hoaxed MJ-12 and accepts that Doty was one of the multiple AFOSI
agents actually involved, at least as he presented it in his
nebulous draft. So Moore's alleged greed-motivation would be
irrelevant as evidence of a "greedy rogue agent" scheme by Doty
et al. to fake the MJ-12 documents.

As to Mary's glaring self-contradictions just look at this mess
of illogic from her posting (emphasis added):

"I asked Brad to only present the paper originally as Barry
would not attend, but he wanted to be co-author so that was

I said I was not going to just read a paper like some mindless
robot. Be that as it may, my co-authorship role was "agreed
upon." But when that fact becomes inconvenient further on in the
posting it is forgotten or treated as if the opposite was true.

And again why was Barry not going to MUFON to back up his own ad
hominem money-motivation claims? If he felt so strongly about it
then he should have done it himself instead of trying to set me
up as the scapegoat.

"Barry wrote the original paper and was the lead author, not
Brad. Brad likes to claim he is the lead because Barry had the
courtesy to list his name first in the original since he was
going to give the presentation."

That is absurd, lead authors are by definition listed first.
This is the first I am hearing of this nonsense. No one ever
disputed the fact that I was the lead author - until now, August
19, 2007. It sounds like sour grapes. If Barry was the "lead
author" then why did he not seem to have the powers of a "lead
author"? It's because everyone recognized that I was the lead

"... [when] Barry ... finally passed [his draft] to Brad in mid-
 May, he immediately begin to cut it up and told me he didn't
like it and it was full of issues that bothered him."

Sounds like a lead author (me) doing his job. If in fact I
didn't have that responsibility then how was I able to "cut it
up" (to remove undocumented junk and ad hominem slurs, etc.)?
From mid-May to mid-July were two months for Barry to exercise
his supposed "lead author" powers but he did not and could not,
because I had that role, not him (which he wanted me to exercise
in an irresponsible and legally negligent fashion, which I was
not about to do).

In this day and age of electronic copy how was it possible for
me to edit material out if I didn't have the lead role "agreed
upon"? If I had had the menial subordinate role Mary insinuates,
at best I would only have been able to make suggestions, not

"Brad refused to allow a single paragraph of Barry's material

How could I actually have the power to "refuse" anything unless
I was in fact the agreed upon "lead author"?

"I might remind Brad that originally he was only asked to read
the paper..."

So now it is forgotten that just a few paragraphs earlier it was
"agreed upon" that I would be co-author. If I was not "lead
author" then how was it that I exercised lead editorial control
as the listed principal author? You can't have it both ways Mary
and Barry, which is it? Was my role "agreed upon" as you said
above, or not? This is double talk.

In any case, Barry is free to take his greed theory and libelous
material I removed from his MUFON Proceedings draft and put it
into a MUFON Journal article and see what happens. Will he now
"forget" that he wrote that there was a multiple-agent official
AFOSI disinformation operation against Bennewitz? It will be
interesting to see how that issue is played given all the
misrepresentations in this posting approved by Barry. I have
what he wrote in the May 11 draft advocating official
disinformation, he can't really take it back now.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast