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: Greg Sandow <greg.nul>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:13:38 -0400
Archived: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:58:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Forged Documents

>From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: Forged Documents

>>>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

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

And then, from another post:

>Witness veracity or recall cannot be determined with respect to
>criminal intent. However, forging a document ipso facto
>attributed to one's self and publishing it as authentic when it
>infringes upon matters that can be construed as pertaining to
>matters of national security, especially to an area as senstive
>to such interests... and in direct violation of federal law.

James, you write with such total confidence here, as if you had
direct experience with how the government and the courts
operate, or as if you had loads of data, showing how they
proceed in these cases.

Do you? Or are you just stating what you believe to be true?
With the kind of certainty, I must say, that you'd only deserve
to have if you actually had evidence.

I'll be a little more honest. I don't have direct experience
with these things, and I don't have all that much data. I do
have some data, though. If you read Howard Blum's book Out
There, about a secret Pentagon group that studied UFOs, you'll
read that the FBI launched an investigation of the original MJ-
12 documents. They concluded, in the end, that the documents
were forgeries. But they didn't take any further action. They
didn't try to find out who had forged the documents. They didn't
bring the case to the Department of Justice, with a
recommendation for federal prosecution.

Why? Because their interest lay elsewhere. They'd been worried
that someone had leaked real top-secret documents. That's why
they launched their investigation. This would be a serious
violation of law, with serious consequences. But when they
decided that the only violation had been forgery, they simply
didn't care. Read the book and see for yourself.

About Area 51, and what the government would do about alleged
forgeries of documents related to the place. You seem to think
that because the facility is so sensitive, the government would
be all over anyone who forged some documents connected to it.
But in fact, they've proceeded in the past very differently.
Their public position is that Area 51, under any name, doesn't
exist. During the Clinton administration, for instance, a group
of Area 51 workers brought suit against the government, saying
that their health had been damaged by environmental violations
on the site. What was the government's defense? That no such
site existed! If this is their position, why would they go after
Lazar for forging documents. The site doesn't exist. End of

Elsewhere you ask, again with total confidence, why Lazar would
forge documents and thus risk his reputation, and take the
chance that he'd be prosecuted. As if nobody ever did anything
stupid! Why do people with drunk driving convictions still drive
drunk? Why do people in prominent positions lie about their
educational credentials? As has happened many times. Why did
Bush invade Iraq? Oh, sorry, that's another conversation.

But here's a question for you. You ask us to concede that Lazar
could, conceivably, have told the truth, and that the government
then made him look like a liar by altering their files and
MIT's. I'll grant that. It could happen. Lyndon Johnson had the
files of his college newspaper altered, to remove stories from
his college days that said bad things about him. Read the first
volume of Robert Caro's biography.

But will you grant in return that it's also possible that Lazar
could be lying? And that his statements and documents can't be
confirmed because there isn't - and never was - any confirmation
for them. Will you grant that this is possible? Even if you
disagree with it.

So now we have two possibilities. Lazar could be telling the
truth, and the government could have falsified the records. Or
Lazar could be lying, and the records are correct. How should we
decide which of these possibilities really happened? Which one
is true? What procedure, what kind of investigation would you
recommend? What kind of evidence would satisfy you - and the
rest of us - that one or the other possibility, finally, is the
correct one? You're quick to denounce anyone who accepts
possibility two, on the grounds that they haven't considered
possibility one. But that doesn't prove that possibility one is
really the truth. How can we actually determine that it is?

Back to you, James. Try to be a little calmer when you reply.

Greg Sandow

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