UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 3

Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:57:47 +0100
Archived: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:04:04 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 16:39:06 EDT
>Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 15:24:54 +0100
>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

>>- Why in hell, if they wanted serious investigation of the MJ-
>>12/Roswell issue, whistle-blowers wouldn't send their stuff to
>>Len Stringfield instead of to a cast of characters who belong in
>>a made-for-cable comedy about wannabe government agents?

>You've got to be kidding? Stringfield? Why in hell wouldn't
>genuine leakers (there is no wrongdoing involved so no "whistle-

I take your point as to the distinction, but I'm assuming that
some breach of secrecy would be involved in any major
revelation, and that this would constitute wrongdoing in the
legal sense.

>go to the NY Times?? The fact they don't tells you >they aren't
genuine leakers, but plants, agents provocateur, >agents
peddling disinformation.

Brad, you know as well as anybody that that the NY Times would
be highly unlikely to publish such material. Three reasons:

1. It is anti-establishment in the most general terms, and that
simply isn't the NY Times editorial stance.

2. It would only publish such material after the story had taken
on mainstream respectability, and that would preclude the NY
Times breaking the story.

3. As a matter of editorial method, it would subject the
material to standard checks before publication, and in the case
of the NY Times these checks would consist of going to senior
military and political figures for comment. These figures would
not confirm the story (whether it be true or false), and
consequently the paper wouldn't run the story - except perhaps
to expose it as a hoax on the basis of the non-confirmation that
its editorial method had elicited.

As for my Len Stringfield suggestion, I don't think it's at all
wide of the mark. At the time (early eighties) he was the
nearest thing to a crash/retrieval specialist in the field, and
thus the obvious candidate for receipt of revelations from an
honest source. But, on my understanding at least, Len was a
fairly cautious individual who preferred to collect and collate
data before forming too many conclusions - not at all the ideal
target for anybody attempting to disseminate disinformation.

I'm aware that this is largely supposition on my part, so it
would be interesting to receive comments from anybody active in
the field at that
time who knew him.

Gerald O'Connell

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



[ 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