UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 12

Re: Larry King Live UFOs Now Friday Night

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947.nul>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:26:44 -0500
Archived: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:41:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Larry King Live UFOs Now Friday Night

>From: John Velez <jvelez49.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:02:06 -0500
>Subject: Re: Larry King Live UFOs Now Friday Night

>>From: John Velez <jvelez49.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 01:08:22 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Larry King Live UFOs Now Friday Night


>>I was not encouraged by the Bassett/PRG 'The sky is falling' and
>>'The earth will tremble' approach when publicizing this

>>Shaping up to be a three-ring circus. So far...

>>I will wait along with interested others and hope that something
>>positive or helpful comes of all this. My 'educated' guess,
>>based on past experience, is that it's all just so much hype for
>>somebody's latest pet project.

>>It's called putting asses in the seats, ladies and gentlemen! A
>>trade practiced by self-serving side-showmen and assorted con-
>>men and hucksters.

>>Let's see if there is any substance/meat to be had.


>I have heard from a couple of trusted associates who inform me
>that Steve Bassett and his PRG have absolutely nothing to do
>with this effort. I was confused by the "official" PRG
>promotional posts that make the whole thing sound like its a PRG
>project. Bassett doesn't make this clear in his posts. Granted,
>it is a 'grey-area' attempted rip-off, but it is a rip-off

>Bassett has a lot of balls trying to put his exopolitical spin
>on this event. To usurp the work of others by sticking his own
>version of the "disclosure project" label on it is simply self-
>serving and dishonest. Nowhere in his post does he acknowledge
>or give any credit to Kean or Fox. He leaves the impression
>(maybe intentionally,) that this event is a PRG effort.

>Leslie Kean and James Fox deserve the credit for assembling this
>impressive group of witnesses and professionals. Steve Bassett
>is simply taking unfair advantage by _using_ the opportunity to
>color this effort with his particular brand of exo-excretion.

>It is nothing short of shameless and I just wanted to say so to
>his face. I know he reads these posts. If not, one of his
>exopolitical cronies will inform him I'm sure.

>Leslie, Jim, thank you for your work and effort to make this
>happen. You are both to be commended. I hope, along with many
>others, that something positive and substantial comes of it.

>Bassett... shame on you, man!

I really don't want to get into another long thread on
politically stupid action by amazingly naive ufologists.

However, here are some general comments followed by some
specific observations.

1. Most of the media as shown by the Democratic Debate is
perfectly willing to ridicule the subject.

(An aside here to illustrate how prevasive this tendency is in

Last night I appeared on a radio talk show in Europe, in talking
to the host afterwards, he touched on an interesting point. When
he had a UFO experience that launched his interest, his
co-workers ridiculed him, having a lot of fun at his expense.
The person who was the ring-leader in the ridicule later told
the witness they he too had a UFO sighting. Both of us have run
into this type of behavior before.)

So in this doing anything involving political action you must
leave out your half baked theories concerning possible Nazi
anti-gravity experiments or that the earth is being visited 54
different types of aliens. However self-evident the above may
appears to you it is just a chink in your armor, which no matter
how good your presentation, will be used by the media to
ridicule. Leave theories, beliefs, and unsupported speculation
at the door.

2. If you are doing a live presentation vet the witnesses. Just
because someone achieved high rank in society does not mean that
they are necessarily reliable or believeable. Some of the most
cracked brained statements come from famous or high ranking

3. Most important in any written presentation for decision
makers, put what you want them to do on the first page! If
anyone thinks that decision makers are going to plow through 200
pages, to find out what you want, you are crazy, Tell them what
you want up front, then arrange your material in convient easy
to reference sections to support conclusions about what you want
decision makers to do. If you want to reinforce your arguments
place your conclusions again at the end of your written
presentation, but if you don't put them up front don't expect
any reaction!

Most ufologists are lone wolves. Most UFO organziations have
only generalized vague goals, not specific goals especially when
it comes to interaction with officialdom. Looking at ufologists
from the officialdom's point of view they are naive and
ignorant. They apparently have no understanding of basic
military correspondence or simple staff procedures. That is why
they label things like the "Twinging Memo", "McCoy Memo" and
"Bolender Memo", etc., which shows not a glimmer of
understanding. Its okay to be ignorant, but wanting to stay
ingorant when knowledge is offered is just plain stupid and
guarantees you will not be taken seriously.

Many ufologists willingly acceptance of silly and hokey things
like '45 Levels Above Top Secret' or that 'Cosmic Top Secret'
confers some kind of special warrant on its holder beyond access
to NATO orginated classified material.

Security procedures are very simple and consist of:

Classification Authority
Levels Of Security
Need To Know

They are made simple so some enlisted MP, AP or contract
civilian guard with little official experience can enforce them.

Methods of accountability may change through the years or be
different within various agencies, however, the principles
apply... The White House may have different accountability
standards or procedures as Presidential Orders determine how
classified information is handled. However, if there are such
differences then arguments are won through research at the
various Presential Libraries and not through bluster nor
rhetorical or debating tricks.

Trying to compare declassifed documents to supposedly leaked
currently classified documents has problems, as declassifed
documents have been perpared for public release, and
accountibility and other markings may have been removed,
obliterated or otherwised sanitized.

Another example of altered documents that have been
declassifed: most Project Blue Book UFO reports have no
indication of what agencies inside and outside the AF recieved
the documents. I have found UFO reports in other agencies' files
which indicate the distribution and indices which tell what
distribution was made... generally hundreds of UFO reports were
reproduce in up to 200 copies. Routinely, the CIA received 5
copies, Navy 2, Army 2, NSA 5 or 6, etc.

Knowing this fact, it can be demonstrated to various leaders
that agencies which release a few hundred pages of documents are
not being forthcoming. Also, orginating agency documents found
elsewhere in other agencies' files show there are, at the very
least, record keeping problems, but more likely a lack of
candor. Demonstrating this to decision makers makes more sense
than a lot of unsupported claims and contentions that
information is withheld.

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135

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