UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 5

Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:34:16 EDT
Archived: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:18:05 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:44:49 +0100
>Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 04:51:00 EDT
>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12


>>Whistleblowers aren't blowing the whistle on their _own_ alleged
>>"wrongdoing" of revealing secret info. Whistleblowers blow the
>>whistle on crimes and misdeeds of their employers.

>That's right, 'crimes and misdeeds'. But you should say 'crimes
>or misdeeds', because some misdeeds are not readily captured by
>existing statute.

It's a stock phrase that uses "and" though meaning 'and/or'.

>>Leaking alleged stories of saucer retrievals is a leak, not
>>blowing the whistle on some crime. What crime under the law is
>>it for the government to cover up UFO info when the government
>>can claim national security laws and state secrets privileges?

>It's not a crime, it's a misdeed. If the government conceals the
>truth and lies about the true nature of an event, then it is a

That is _your_ characterization, _not_ what the leakers say. Few
if any ever say that they are leaking because they want to blow
the whistle on an illegal or wrongful government coverup.

Some leakers say they think the public ought to know, but they
usually don't say that the government was wrong in withholding
the info. That makes them leakers, not whistleblowers. I think
most of them are goddamned liars spewing out government
disinformation in the form of bogus crashed UFO tales.


>>A genuine leaker would be insane to go to some fringe UFO
>>personality to leak his info. What the hell would be the point?
>>That's like throwing the info in the trash.

>A whistleblower leaking genuine documents might very well avoid
>journalistic outlets if he thought that the likelihood of
>finding corroborative records were minimal.

A liar disinformation agent of the government might very well
avoid reputable journalistic outlets if he thought that his lies
might be exposed if he went to the NY Times or Wash Post.

AFOSI special agent Richard Doty admitted to Linda Howe in
their meeting in AFOSI offices on April 9, 1983, that he chose
her to leak his info (actually disinfo) instead of the New York
Times because she is "much easier to control."

(Bishop, Project Beta, p. 205.)

>Journalists look for
>corroboration, preferably documented, and usually drop the story
>if they can't find it. Ufologists, bless them, driven by
>stubborn paranoia and similar investigative virtues, tend to
>keep on keeping on, even when the mainstream laughs in their

That's patently absurd, UFO researchers are the quickest to give
up on almost everything legitimate that comes their way. Only a
very very few idea fixations ever take on a longer hold (and
it's on pet cases or pet theories of fringe nature). Project
Blue Book files get released to the public July 12, 1976? One-
day wonder. It's decades before anyone starts a real systematic
study of them. So much for them wanting to "end the coverup."
They had over a hundred thousand pages of covered up UFO
documents released but then it's all but ignored.

So your theory is that leakers leak because they want the public
to know the "truth" yet they go to UFO writers who have very
limited access to the public and very little credibility in
society at large. The leakers go to those who are marginalized
and not taken as credible sources, which naturally and
inevitably results in the leaked "truth" becoming discredited.
So in effect what you really describe is a disinformation agent
not a legitimate leaker.

>Given a reasonable assessment of what would be required to
>corroborate the MJ-12 documentation, I think it quite sensible
>to leak it to the right sort of Ufologist(s). I don't think it
>would be fair to characterise Len Stringfield as 'some fringe
>UFO personality' in this connection.

I didn't characterize him that way, you put those words
together. Dick Hall posted here that he had arguments with
Stringfield over why he kept uncritically accepting so many
questionable crash stories. You ignored that.

The UFO community needs to put an end to circulating and
recirculating government disinformation.

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