UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 27

Re: Forged Documents

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:47:43 EDT
Archived: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:04:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Forged Documents


>From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Forged Documents [was: 'American Spy Satellite Downed In Peru'?]

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:49 EDT
>>Subject: Re: 'American Spy Satellite Downed In Peru'?

>>>From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
>>>Subject: Re: 'American Spy Satellite Downed In Peru'?

>>>>From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:31:54 -0400
>>>>Subject: Re: 'American Spy Satellite Downed In Peru'?

<snip>

>>>Forging a government document and a publisher allowing it in a
>>>book, making no determination of its authenticity, without any
>>>serious repercussion and under the circumstances of its
>>>sensational subject matter...why isn't Mr. Lazar in jail if what
>>>you say is true? If the government chose not to do its duty, the
>>>publisher damn well would. All silence though, just like you on
>>>that point.

>>>JCH

<snip>

>>If I might butt in here. What makes you think that the publisher
>>cares if the documents are faked or authentic? What makes you
>>think they even care?

>Pardon me, Mr. Randle, let's try employing a little more power
>of discernment, shall we? We're not talking about a shopping
>list from the Dead Sea Scrolls, a birthday card alledged to have
>been sent from Elizabeth Barret Browning to a lover while her
>husband was still alive, or a new Lincoln letter firing his
>Minister of War, Stanton, found in a box of Cracker Jacks.
>We are talking about what has been alledged to be a forged
>government document, published as authentic by the very person
>to which it first-hand pertains and who has thus placed
>themselves in direct conflict with both federal criminal
>statute, civil liability and in short, having their behind hung
>out to dry on just about every level future aspirations might
>have.

>And there are no criminal proceedings. (How little that would
>take to convict _if_ Lazar was lying.)

>And you're going to tell me a publishing house has no stake in
>the veracity of what they publish?

>Yes, a little more discernment, please.


>JCH

Good Morning, List, All -

It always astonishes me when facts are simply ignored because
they don't fit into the belief structures of those proposing
counter arguments. I was saying nothing about Lazar's creation
of a document, the veracity of his claims, or why he hasn't been
prosecuted for that.

I was saying that publishers often don't care if the material
they publish is the truth, has been verified, or is accurate.
All they care about is how much money will they make and that
there is no way that they could be sued, and if sued, how they
can blame the writer so that they are not out any money for
lawyer's fees.

Take, as relevant example (offered simply because those on this
list will be familiar with publisher) Prometheus Books which has
published a couple of books about Roswell. In one of them, there
are any number of statements that can be demonstrated as false.
A careful vetting of the work would have shown the
contradictions in the text. Anyone familiar with the case would
have seen the trouble... yet Prometheus went ahead and published
the book because it fit into their established policy, should
attract attention because of Roswell in the title, and would
therefore make money. They didn't care about the inaccuracies.

Okay, here's an example that appeared in one of their Roswell
books:

"According to Easley's family, he was quite advanced in age when
he spoke with Randle. His memory was failing him and Easley had
a tendency to place himself in events at which he was not
present."


This statement is simply not true. When I spoke to Easley, he
was in good health and had yet to become fatally ill. This
writer didn't speak to the family, but got his information from
Easley's eye doctor and it is information that is in conflict
with other information obtained by Dr. Mark Rodeghier of the
Center for UFO Studies. The publisher contacted no one to
ascertain if the above quote was accurate.

Prometheus is also responsible for the late Karl Pflock's
dismissal of the Beverly Bean testimony about her father, Melvin
Brown. Karl complained that Bean's story was second-hand and
that neither her sister nor her mother would comment on it.
Pflock is right about this being a tale told by the daughters
and wife of the man who lived it. There is nothing that can be
done about that. By the time his name surfaced in the
investigation, he had died from complications of various lung
diseases, but it is not true that his wife or other daughter
refused to talk.

Ada Brown added little to the complex tale told by Beverly Bean
when she was interviewed on video tape. She merely confirmed
that she too had heard about the crash over the years and that
it was something from another world.

Bean's sister, Harriet Kercher, on January 4, 1991, was also
interviewed on video tape. She had heard her father tell his
tales a couple of times when Beverly was there. But Kercher also
said that her father tell her about the crashed flying saucer,
saying that there were a few bodies on it when her sister wasn't
present.

Here's the deal on that. Karl knew about these taped interviews
because they were done for FUFOR and he had access to copies of
them. So, it would seem that Karl knew the truth, and that
Prometheus should have known it was well. But such a truth
didn't fit into their view of the Roswell case, so they made no
mention of those interviews. (Please note that this doesn't
prove that Brown saw a craft and bodies, only that the statement
that neither Bean's sister nor mother had heard anything and had
failed to corroborate it is untrue.)

You want a better example. Okay. Fawcett published The
Philadelphia Experiment after Carlos Allende (Carl Allen) signed
a statement that his reports on this were a hoax. He had made up
the information. With that available, should the book have been
published? Did the publisher bother to check the facts in the
book?

So, my point was that publishers care little for the veracity of
the information they publish (okay, some pay lip service to the
concept of accuracy but we'll see how this plays out with the
Anna Nicole lovers get done with their lawsuits against Rita
Crosby... I'm sure the lawyers asked if she was sure, but they
did nothing to really check the accuracy). They are interested
in the bottom line and I know this having worked with many
publishers in many locations... And sometimes they don't want to
know the truth and keep it out of the story.


KRandle



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