UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jun > Jun 19

Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:16:50 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:06:02 -0400
Subject: Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists - Rudiak

>From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:35:25 -0700
>Subject: Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:09:07 -0700
>>Subject: Re: U.S. Spies On Ufologists

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

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

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

>>>Also, just for the record I found some evidence that in the
>>>very earliest days there was some Official Harassment of type C
>>>(UFOlogists getting "too close to the truth") but it merged
>>>with type B (Ufologists treated as subversives) and transformed
>>>into type D.

>>Brad, for those of us who don't know what the "type D"
>>explanation is, could you quickly summarize it? I suspect most
>>List readers don't even know what you two are discussing.

>I would concur with David Rudiak. Even though I have done some
>searching on past UFO UpDates posts where you discuss the
>various types (A, B, and C) it's not entirely clear where and
>why you refer to "B" and "C" transmuting into "D". Would you
>please give us your current opinion and data regarding why and
>how you think option "D" is more accurate than Nick's "A/B"

Brad in a private email explained option "D" (to be a little
over-simplistic for brevity) as the Air Force hating Ufology's
guts because we bother them so much and have humiliated or put
them on the public defensive on occasion, such as what Keyhoe
did in the 50's/60's or what almost happened in 1994 with the
GAO inquiry on Roswell. (Take that for all critics of Ufology
who think we are totally ineffectual wimps.) Thus the Air Force
is out to destroy us through a campaign of public ridicule and a
discrediting of more prominent researchers. It's pure malice.
(Hope I got that right.)

I think A, B, C, and D are all at play at various times. No
doubt at times they hate us, but I also think they often go
after researchers for "C", getting too close to the truth, or
getting too close to something classified (B). Gildas mentioned
Dennis Balthaser's intercept by AFOSI as a fairly recent example
of "C." I think another classic example of "C" in the 1980s was
the William Moore, Paul Bennewitz, Linda Howe affair. Howe ended
up getting her cattle mutilation documentary cancelled by HBO,
Moore got defrocked and discredited as a double-agent working
with his aviary and spying on fellow Ufologists, and Bennewitz
got driven insane. Was Bennewitz really observing UFOs (hence
"C") or some classified project ("B"). Nobody knows for sure,
but AFOSI went after him in a totally ruthless fashion to
destroy the man.

Are there other examples? Perhaps. E.g., what better way to
discredit a researcher or their research than to plant a hoaxer
or create a hoax supported them as genuine that later gets
exposed as a hoaxer/hoax or strongly suspected as same? Is this
what MJ-12 or Frank Kaufmann were all about? Maybe the recent
"Project Serpo" was another example, but I don't think anybody
prominent took the bait. They made that story way too

David Rudiak

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