UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jun > Jun 17

Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists - Redfern

From: Nicholas Redfern <nick_redfern.nul>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:44:00 -0400
Subject: Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists - Redfern

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:04:26 EDT
>Subject: Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists

>>From: Nicholas Redfern <nick_redfern.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists

>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:15:38 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists

>>>>From: Nicholas Redfern <nick_redfern.nul>
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>Subject: Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists


>>>>However, time and again, I found a couple of central themes to
>>>>the surveillance: namely that it was undertaken because (a)
>>>>intelligence agencies suspected that certain ufologists were
>>>>being duped and hired by overseas intelligence agencies into
>>>>gathering for them classified defense information of a
>>>>specifically non-UFO nature (but while using their UFO research
>>>>as a cover); and (b) because it was suspected that some
>>>>ufologists were using the UFO subject as a way of subtly
>>>>spreading political data of a type that the Intel world had
>>>>concerns about.

>>>>I found _no_ instance where any ufologist was being watched
>>>>because they were getting 'too close to the truth' about literal
>>>>ET-driven UFOs

>>>Hmm, there is another explanation, the _real_ explanation I
>>>believe, which you do not consider or mention.

>Pity to miss out.

>>>I have posted on it many times and will not belabor the matter
>>>yet again, it just goes nowhere. This is just an FYI that I
>>>think you are way off base.

>>>Good luck.

>>No, I'm not off-base. I'm right on it.

>You are completely off base. You give explanations A, B and
>the rejected C (Ufologists who get "too close to the truth"). Then
>I remind you there is a specific real and principal explanation D
>that I have previously posted about, and you beat the dead
>horse again on A and B, instead of researching D.

>Are you going to continue to beat the dead horse on A and B?


Yep to re A and B. And not a dead horse. Special Branch comments
on Cole and Williams prove it.

>By the way, are you still in contact with your disinformation
>psychological warfare experts from your BS in the Desert book?
>What do they say about your latest venture? Did they provide any
>of the information for it?

No, and no providing info for 'latest venture'. Actually, it's
not a 'latest venture' as such, as it was published in early

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



[ 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