NOTICE: The page below has been permenently FROZEN as of January 2000. Due to resource limitations, this section of our website is no longer maintained, so some links may not work and some information may be out of date. We have retained this page for archive reference only, and we cannot vouch for its accuracy. Broken links will not be repaired, and minor errors will not be corrected. You are responsible for independently verifying any information you may find here. More Info
|
From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:30:36 -0800 |
X-Originating-IP: [208.136.114.115]
From: "Lars Hansson" <lhansson44@hotmail.com>
To: webmaster@ufomind.com
Subject: Accuracy
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 00:29:45 PDT
Mr. Campbell:
I first visited your site a couple weeks ago, and from what I have
reviewed thus far, I must commend you on the overall volume and quaility
I've observed. It would probably have been at least another year before
I'd have done so, frankly, owing to the crush of other more compelling
demands on my time, but so many people have been asking me about the
posting of my manuscript re: Lear, et al, at your website, and others,
over the last couple years that I finally decided to take a look.
Although I learned long ago from my unfortunate interaction with Lear
not to allow falsehoods to disturb me greatly, and to resist becoming
further embroiled in what basically amount to "tar-baby" scenarios, your
recent posting to my file contains some fundamental errors which I feel
compelled to at least point out in hopes that you will then correct, in
keeping with your apparent concern for accuracy. I would prefer that
this message remain private, but in an all-too-similar circumstance as
that which compelled my writing and making the "Who's Fooling Whom?"
manuscript widely public, you have my permission to post this wherever
you like, in the hope that I may once again clarify my position on
several important ongoing issues, not the least of which is my
longevity.
I must apologize in advance if my tone may at times seem hostile, but
please understand that I am so thoroughly revolted by anything to do
with Lear, UFOs and so forth that I am deeply offended even having to
address the issue again.
**********************************************************************
You indicated in your second link in my file, "Lars Hansson is
Alive!", that I was rumored to be dead. I must ask you in earnest, sir,
just when and from whom, exactly, did you first learn of such rumors,
and from whom any time since? Think carefully, since you and others may
yet be presented with subpoenas concerning this question. I shall have
more to say about this in what follows.
As I indicated in the opening of my 1991 statement, I became so
thoroughly disgusted with the parade of idiots, egotists and
manipulators encountered during the time I was in contact with John Lear
from roughly mid-1988 until late 1990, that I have done all possible to
avoid the entire subject since the publication of "Who's Fooling Whom,"
preferring to let it stand on its own as my response to numerous lies
and insinuations being advanced by John Lear, Bill Cooper and their
coterie of sycophants. Obviously, there has been no lack of claimants to
the title of UFO expert, friend of Bob, friend of John, friend of Milton
William, etc., in my purposeful absence.
In one of your references to me, I am referred to as a "conspiracy
buff." I assure you, Mr. Campbell, nothing could be further from the
truth. "Planning investigator" would be a far more appropriate and
accurate apellation. As you may also have noted in my affidavit, I
pointed out that my professional background up to that time had been
comprised partly of law-enforcement related duties as a deputy sheriff
and U.S. Customs officer. Until about two years ago, I have continued
working as an investigative writer primarily in the fields of criminal
covert operations and/or drug dealing, illegal weapons sales, and so
forth. A year before I met John Lear and Lt. Col. Bo Gritz in Las Vegas,
I was one of the very few free-lance investigative reporters to travel
to Guatemala City at my own expense to cover the Esquipulas II Central
American Presidential Summit, wher I interviewed a number of the
notables there, including the man who would shortly thereafter be
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, then-Costa Rican President Oscar Arias.
I was one of the few free-lance reporters to cover the Noriega trial
in Miami, and met there twice, at length, with one of his attorneys
concerning partially exculpatory evidence I had obtained first-hand from
several sources - information that could have (and should have) forced
George Bush himself into the docket with Manuel. That coverage formed
the basis for a four-part series in the Napa Sentinel, as did my
coverage of a little-known prosecution of a major international weapons
dealer responsible for smuggling most of the weapons to Somalia to fuel
that conflagration, under his alleged contract with the CIA and
Department of Defense. The man's name is Hank Warton, whom I interviewed
for several hours at his home in Golden Beach, Florida. He also
confirmed his employment of John Lear during those criminal flight
operations, and others.
In this same capacity, I actually traveled to Baghdad in the summer of
1992, 17 months after the end of the Gulf War, and interviewed at length
most of the top ministers of the Iraqi government, including Gen. Ayad
Khalil, commander of the Iraqi forces during the war. To my knowledge, I
am the only western journalist ever to have met the man, much less to
have interviewed him (and I DO have the video to prove it). My
first-hand reporting and videotaping of American warplanes deliberately
torching Iraqi grainfields, filed from Paris on my return, formed the
basis for a front-page story in the L.A. Times on June 28, 1997, as well
as other front-page stories in the Middle Eastern press (and I still
have those clippings as well).
I point these activities out not to toot my own horn, Mr. Campbell,
but rather to impress upon you that my professional commitment to this
work extends way beyond "buffdom."
You wrote in your introduction to my brief posting to the Lazar file
that:
"Hansson, whose best-known work is a lurid (and mostly unfair) expose
of John Lear, was rumored recently to have died. I guess this proves he
has risen again."
Mr. Campbell, you could not possibly be more wrong on both counts.
First, to address your latter point, as you should well know by now
anyone claiming to be me could have posted that message, especially
since you did not bother to verify my authorship by return e-mail, as is
customary in many other such websites. As you also are well aware, I
certainly did not furnish you with a copy of my manuscript, either, but
that was posted by you more than a year before I became aware of it. God
knows, Lear & Co. have claimed many things were done by me which I would
never have even conceived of, prior to my learning of their
prevarication(s). In this case, however, I do acknowledge authorship of
that note re: Lazar and commend you on your observation of such as
quickly as you did.
At this point, despite the very ugly issue of the rumors of my demise,
I find it nevertheless highly amusing (especially after reading the "Wit
and Wisdom of Huff" and numerous other "Area 51" newsgroup postings by
Huff, Lear, Mahood, et al, in a futile attempt to bring myself
up-to-date) that you would be so bold as to claim the "Who's Fooling
Whom" manuscript is my "best-known work" and a "lurid (and mostly
unfair) expose of John Lear." Since producing that text under
considerable duress six years ago, I have done my best to distance
myself from Lear and his cronies and put it far behind me. Anyone who
has bothered to become familiar with my ongoing activities would hardly
rate "Who's Fooling Whom?" as my best-known work. Certainly the two
books I co-authored with Bo Gritz, at least, are better known - outside
your narrow field of focus, at any rate.
Understand clearly, Mr. Campbell, that my statement was written six
years ago expressly and precisely to place into the public record
threats Lear was making against my life to Bob Lazar and others. Did he
have sufficient motive to have actually done so? If you actually read my
statement before posting it, I think you'd agree that exposure not only
of his marital infidelity, but involvement in the illegal transport of
over a $trillion worth of stolen gold from the Philippines certainly
would have been enough to enrage him to that degree. It certainly had to
have enraged those people already furious at him about shooting his
mouth off about such matters. (I must add that the law firm which sued
the Ferdinand Marcos Estate for the theft of the gold, to whom I
provided an entire day's worth of testimony, prevailed in a
$multi-million judgment, after openly naming elements of the CIA as
acomplices).
Recall clearly that Daniel Casolaro, another investigator from
Virginia who was working on many of the same issues in which I was
deeply engaged, was found with his wrists slashed to the bone in a motel
in West Virginia just over two weeks after I swore to the truthfulness
of the contents of my statement UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, and began to
make it public. The first I ever heard of Casolaro was when a mutual
friend (another long-time professional investigator) called to warn me
to "keep your head down." Note also that the one person who had openly
threatened Casolaro's life days before he died (according to writer John
Connolly and FBI agent Tom Gates), was John Lear's "buddy," Robert Booth
Nichols. One of my closest friends in L.A., who had gone to the Federal
Court Archives in Laguna Niguel to pull files on some of these
characters for me, was also found "suicided" during this same time
period.
When you characterize my statement as "lurid," you can attribute that
description of the contents entirely to Lear himself, as the source.
Believe me, I had far better things to do with my waking hours at that
time and since, but because of the heat my investigative work was
generating on several fronts, after learning of Lear's snide
insinuations on his own answering machine about my supposed "arrest for
prostitution," (a bald-faced lie); my supposed attempts to molest his
then-14-year-old daughter (another bald-faced lie); and his efforts to
lure me back to Las Vegas from Florida to have me killed (probably
true), I certainly wanted the police to know whom to begin questioning
if any of his buddies (or hirelings) did get the drop on me. Attempts
have been made since then, by persons unknown (who will bear the scars
of their failure for the rest of their life, I assure you).
My caution was and is well-founded in light of the (ridiculous)
official suicide pronouncement in the death of Casolaro; the strange
death of cancer at age 41 of Geoff Graff, a mutual friend of mine and
(neighbor of) Lear's who was either privy or and actual witness to a
number of my "key" dealings with Lear; and the numerous deaths of close
friends and associates which have followed since that time. As I said in
my manuscript, I don't fear John Lear in the slightest, but he remains
in close touch with some very heavy hitters who have become ensnared in
this miasma as a result of our contretemps. I'd be quite willing to face
any and all of them in the daylight, tomorrow, but, to a man, they are
the type that sneak around in the dark and work with silent weapons from
behind.
When you say "mostly unfair," Mr. Campbell, how the hell do you know?
Were you there for ANY of it? Did you ever question me, or even make the
attempt? I am eminently available to those I WANT to hear from 24 hours
a day, toll-free, and have never shrunk from responding to such
questions from anyone else who was on the level. Hell, when I filed a
$150-million civil lawsuit against Steven Seagal (another of Lear's
"acquaintances") I even went on the Geraldo Live! show in New York just
to make certain it was in the very public record. I assure you, Mr.
Campbell, as I did the rest of the reading public six years ago, every
word I wrote in that statement six years ago was the truth to the very
best of my recollection, personal AND professional, attested to UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY.
You may have noticed John Lear has never been willing to confront me
publicly about any of it, even though he has had several invitations
that I am aware of to go nationwide with his rebuttal. He hasn't and he
won't because he knows I was telling the truth, and he knows there were
other witnesses to the most "lurid" details. The same applies in spades
to his cronies who were also referred to in the affidavit.
If anything was "unfair" in my statement, it was that I left so much
out about other details of Lear's "lurid" behavior in order to spare
several other participants severe embarassment, if not prosecution. Had
I chosen to include them, you could never have had the luxury of making
so uninformed a comment, so great would have been their outcry. Doubt
me? Ask Lear the most obvious question that has begged to be advanced
ever since he posted his "lame-brained" comment about my statement (that
it was 50% B.S): specifically, which 50% of the whole was TRUE, and
which wasn't? I assure you again, under penalty of perjury, NOT ONE WORD
was made up or distorted, though I am sure Lear has lain awake MANY
nights wishing otherwise.
I could continue, Mr. Campbell, with ease, but I think I've written
enough to make my point. Please take no offense at my criticism,
inasmuch as it is more rhetorical than personal, and I have become quite
inured to it at this point, which is again why I have tried to stay out
of this crap for so long. I have not "risen again," so much as I have
had to take time out of a valuable schedule yet again to address what
appears to be a six-year buildup of bullshit. But understand very
clearly, Mr. Campbell, when after six years I learn again from a trusted
witness that Lear is crowing about my supposed death and offering to
take people out to dinner in order to celebrate,
my well-known sense of humor is non-existent at this juncture, and there
may yet be criminal indictments if it is proven Lear made any overt
efforts whatsoever to effect my termination. The matter is under very
serious scrutiny as I write this.
In closing, I must say that it is indeed ironic in this golden age of
information transmission, that a large part of Lear's anger toward me is
probably due to the presence of my affidavit on the Internet, when I had
nothing whatsoever to do with it being placed there, and would probably
have chosen not to do so had I been presented with the choice. It is
ironic that otherwise credible, capable and conscientious people such as
yourself buy Lear's denials without ever bothering to pick up a phone
and ask me about it directly. You have no idea how many times in the
last nearly ten years I've wished I had never met the man, when the only
reason I did was that I literally stumbled over a newspaper article on
the floor of a house I was building which was about the famed pilot John
Lear and his upcoming first lecture on UFOs in Las Vegas. Had I only
simply picked it up and thrown it in the trash...where it belonged...
Sincerely,
Lars C. Hansson
Himself,
in the flesh,
and damned determined to stay that way
"Most powerful is he, who has himself in his own power."
- Seneca
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Index: Lars Hansson
|
Created: Aug 22, 1997