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 -> Jul -> Re: Project 1947 - Robert Dean

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:02:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:45:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Project 1947 - Robert Dean

Just a couple of comments to add to the discussion, but much of the
previous posts have been deleted for brevity.  Please review the earlier
postings for the complete picture.

>>Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:57:55 -0700
>>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET>
>>Subject: Robert Dean
>>To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>
>>Greeting List Members,
>
>>    To deal with Dean as a creditable person one most consider that he is
>>telling us about a Top Secret document that he took an oath to safeguard.
>>It was a "draftee's oath."  He was a professional.  It wasn't a little
>>oath.  And Dean himself talks about how the government is flushing the
>>Constitution of the United States down the toilet.  He has done the same
>>to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution if what he says is
>>true.
>
>>   So we are left with two possibilities:  Dean is an oath-breaker or a
>>liar. In either case not a very creditable person.
>
>(snip)
>
>>Jan Aldrich
>===========================================================================
>Hello Errol, Jan, All,
>
>I think the world of Jan Aldrich and all of the hard and conscientious work
>that he does. But I have to take issue with him in regard to the following
>statement.
>
>>So we are left with two possibilities:  Dean is an oath-breaker or a
>>liar. In either case not a very creditable person.
>
>Why only "two possibilities" Jan? Couldn't the man have "broken his oath"
>in response to the dictates of his conscience? A soldier is not supposed to
>follow an unlawful/illegal order it is a moral/judgement call and an
>obligation if in answer to a higher inner authority.

While this sounds good, I'm not sure that it fits the military framework.
Who is to define an "unlawfull/illegal order" in a time of war.  Soldiers
are primarily trained to become fighting machines, not to second guess the
decisions of their superiors.  In basic training the individual is
transformed into a member of a fighting unit, and that usually leaves
little room for contemplation of "higher inner authority".  We are talking
about people trained to kill when orderred to do so, and while the
technology is more advanced, the goal is still the same.

With that being said, the question of whether Dean should be taken to task
for disclosing information after the fact is perhaps a bit different.  If
Dean is telling the truth, and I have no reason to doubt his word, then he
is technically an "oath breaker" and could face prosecution.  On the other
hand, it is unlikely that the military would lend credibility to his story
by taking legal action.  History, in the end, will be written by the
victors in this matter and that will define how his actions are viewed by
those that follow.

Steve