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: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:47:44 -0300
Archived: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:15:23 -0400
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

>>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.4.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 11:09:07 +0100
>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12


>>No one likes to talk about Doty very much because of where
>>conversations like that can lead.

>Really? What a pity. Can you, for the benefit of the ignorant
>and naive (I have a foot in each camp), elucidate a little

>If somebody were to find out who has really been paying Doty's
>wages all these years, then 'conversations like that' could lead
>to somewhere productive. Instead of that we have the unedifying
>spectacle of some the best investigative talent in the field
>wasting its time on turf wars and internecine wrangling - all of
>which may, of course, be precisely the aim of the exercise for
>those who originally pulled the strings that started the puppets

>Am I alone in becoming less and less interested in (for example)
>whether Ike had the right type of typewriter, yet more and more
>interested in questions like the following?

>- How much potential investigative effort is being wastefully
>burned up by these disputes?

>- Why do so many smart investigators seem to have forgotten that
>it is a basic rule of espionage/black ops/forensic investigation
>etc. that when the other side says "Hey guys! Over Here! Look at
>all this!" (and I'm talking about the whole Roswell, MJ-12
>phenomenon here), then you nod politely, make a low-effort show
>of interest, but actually direct all your real resources
>elsewhere (and if you suspect a double-bluff, then you ignore
>the call completely, secure in the knowledge that they'll always
>come back with more)?

>- 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?

Len Stringfield was much more of a collector of stories than an
investigator and wouldn't let others do the investigating he
couldn't. Documents weren't his thing.

The New York Times had a long history of blind acceptance of
noisy negativist pronouncements.. Witness crash test dummies.
They are apparently unwilling to admit they had ignored the best
evidence for decades.

Stan Friedman

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