Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Aug -> Two Bits [was: PROJECT-1947 - Corso's

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Glenn Joyner <infohead@airmail.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 04:00:38 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:26:43 -0400
Subject: Two Bits [was: PROJECT-1947 - Corso's

With kind regards to the List, our host, EBK, and Scott Hale...

REFERENCE:
>Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:35:49 -0700
>From: Scott Hale <shale@megalinx.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: PROJECT-1947 - Corso's Qualification Record

SCOTT STATED:
>UFO sightings have long been and will continue to bea question to be
>studied/noted by intelligence groups. Perhaps one notices what a
>confusing subject UFOs are when in intelligence?

That's an interesting point, and one that is born out well, when you
look at some of the guys in the 50s and 60s that were actually involved
in what I think of as "Pioneering UFOlogy," heh.  For instance, Major
Donald Keyhoe comes to mind immediately, and the intense interest and
even infiltration of early UFO research groups by folks known to have
a "covert" background.

Somebody help me out since I'm blank...  What was the _particular_
organization I'm talking about?  Stan Friedman?  Don Ecker?
Rebecca Schatte?  Jerome Clark? Jan Aldrich?  Was it NICAP?  Fawcett
and Greenwood did some good research, but I'll be dadgum (Texas
colloquialism, sorry) if my synapses will fire right now, heh...

>After all, I think we all probably agree that someone with a
>background in intelligence would be more likely to get interested in
>UFOs then an average person.

Indeed, one would _have_ to recognize (although with some it would
be grudgingly) that some pretty "intelligent" people work for
"intelligence" outfits.  And your assessment fits, I think, whether
that interest might be in a "professional" capacity or not. (wink)

My point, if I just have to have one (heh), is that an intelligence
background would not NECESSARILY be a bad thing to have, when
approaching this subject.  I personally think it might be
refreshing to have those who are good enough investigators and
thinkers go in and flush some of the sewage out of UFOlogy's pipes.

Through the years, I have observed some odd twists, with regard
to involvement of "intelligence people" in UFOlogy.  I've seen
what I believe to be both "information" and "disinformation" come
of it.

>I would also like to point out that the public at large doesn't
>think UFO research to be "fringe", at least according to the recent
>polls

I'm still with you, Scott, but I will respectfully reserve a
spot on "hold" with the above.  (grin)  I still think we have a
way to go to be accepted without at least a smirk on the part of
a good percentage of the population.

>I'm not saying that there aren't people with creepy
>ulterior motives involved in UFO research.

Sage words, Scott.  That group can be divided into several
levels and motivations, but that would be another topic unto
itself, heh.

>The problem comes in when we have people like Ed Komarek
>(I hate to use real life examples, but it's the only thing I
>can relate it to.) who scream debunker or disinformation
>agent if that person doesn't think the same way as them.

I won't call any names, as you have already effectively covered
that issue (nudge, wink, saynomore), but I WHOLLY and COMPLETELY
agree with the above-related scenario.  It flatly flabbergasts
me that such polarization exists amongst people who would call
themselves researchers and/or investigators.  (shrug)

It amazes me how many comments that Bill Ralls and I get about
being "debunkers," in regard to our own research, simply because
we refuse to buy into or support that which we either KNOW or
vigorously percieve to be either wrong, misguided, uninformed,
or [excuse my flair here, but let's call a spade a spade]
BULLSHIT.

>This undying untrust of every person we associate with in
>regards to UFO research holds us back!

Here here.  Bravo.  Concurrence.

>Look at Jan Aldrich. Here is a researcher who has undertaken
>a study, which, will probably become one of the most important
>UFO studies ever made.

Without a doubt!  [EVERYONE READING, hats off and a salute
to Jan and his associates!]

>Instead of being praised for such excellent and level-headed
>research we questions about Jan's military past! This is
>something wrong with this picture...

I perceived such to be, when I read it, a badly-fired
rocket, aimed at the wrong target. (wink)  "Friendly" fire
is sometimes the most hazardous, I guess...

>My Two Bits,
>Scott K. Hale

Mine, too.  Heh.

Glenn Joyner
Dallas


********************************************
** Visit : http://ufo-world.simplenet.com **
**  It's a SERIOUS look at UFO phenomena  **
********************************************