UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 6

Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:21:49 +0100
Archived: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:32:57 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:34:16 EDT
>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

<snip>

>>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
>>misdeed.

>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.

I'm sure you are quite wrong, as a generality, in cases outside
the USA.

Within the USA, things are different, as evidenced by the mere
existence, within living memory, of the concept 'un-American' in
the realm of public discourse. There may be cultural inhibitions
over telling the truth about the government's ethical position
which lead leakers to find other ways of expressing their
reasons for whistleblowing.

>That makes them leakers, not whistleblowers.

No, it means they are nervous of openly questioning their
government's ethics on such matters. They are still blowing the
whistle!

>I think
>most of them are goddamned liars spewing out government
>disinformation in the form of bogus crashed UFO tales.

><snip>

>>>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.)

And you think this is an instance of Doty being totally straight
and telling the truth? He may have been right about the 'much
easier to control' part, but that doesn't make it the real
reason for his decision!

>>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
>>faces.

>That's patently absurd, UFO researchers are the quickest to give
>up on almost everything legitimate that comes their way.

Well, Brad, you certainly seem to have plenty of stamina,
despite not getting any help, as you've told us half a dozen
times now; and so does your sparring partner Stan. There are
also many other sterling examples of folk who have stayed in it
for the long haul.

>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.

Is that right? I thought people were sifting through that
material from its first availability.

>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.

It's the field of interest that is discredited - another reason
why the attention of  legitimate journalists is difficult to
attract, even with solid data. A staff hack at the NY Times who
proposed to break the MJ-12 story as a serious supporter of the
validity of the material would have been regarded by his
colleagues as having chosen a somewhat eccentric way to
resign...

>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.

In an effort redefine these terms in a way that supports your
argument, you have reached a point of absolute contradiction.
What about when the leaked 'truth' is actually true? Would
leaking it to a marginalised ufologist then make it
disinformation?

>>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.

The words 'some fringe UFO personality' are yours, not mine, and
they came as part of your dismissal of the idea that any genuine
material might be leaked to somebody like Len. If you wish to
retract those words in connection with Len, then please do so
directly, rather than indirectly by falsely attributing them to
me.

>Dick Hall posted here that he had arguments with
>Stringfield over why he kept uncritically accepting so many
>questionable crash stories. You ignored that.

I didn't 'ignore' it. Since what Dick said demonstrated fairly
clearly the general validity of the point the point I was
making, I thought his words could stand without further comment
- this thread isn't really in need of any more triumphalism.
Anyway, for those who require a diagram, Dick said: "There is no
doubt in my mind that he was often the target of disinformation,
attempted hoaxes and the like, but also the recipient of a lot
of valid information.

He was very cautious, but to the point of being unwilling to
discard some cases that smelled to high heaven of fakery. (I
privately criticized him about this more than once and often
recommended not including certain cases in his reports, but he
erred on the side of inclusion and non-rejection)."

So, unless you have a different agenda, or have a deep-seated
need to have a difference of opinion with just about anything
anybody says in connection with this, you can conclude fairly
reasonably that Len would have been an ideal recipient for a
leak of genuine information leaked in good faith. He didn't
reject many stories, so he would have published the data, and it
would have been seen by those in the field most receptive to
such material. But he was not a targeted recipient, which
suggests that the material might not have been genuine. Which,
in turn, was my original point.

I also 'ignored' Stan's comments on Len Stringfield for similar
reasons. Stan's view to the effect that Len was not particularly
forensically minded when it came to documents lends further
support to the view that Len might have been a friendlier
recipient of dubious MJ-12 material than serious journalists who
would go looking for corroborative evidence and then drop the
story when such evidence could not be obtained.

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

I agree with you, Brad.

--
Gerald O'Connell




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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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