UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:36:00 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:09:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Project 1947 - Robert Dean
> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 14:54:56 -0500
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Project 1947 - Robert Dean
> >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:57:55 -0700
> >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET>
> >Subject: Robert Dean
> >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Greetings John and Update Subscribers,
1. I did not post this to Updates. This post was in answer
to someone on the Project 1947 List who thought that Robert Dean
should carry the standard for UFOlogy. Errol & Sue are list members
and are always welcome to cross post anything they like.
However, you should realized you do not have the context of
these messages or further clarifications.
2. It is not necessary to post further messages as I will
summarize everything here.
> > 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?
This is not a matter of conscience issue. He agreed to abid
by proper lawful orders no matter his person opinion.
Was he given an unlawful order? No. If he is unhappy with
something that is classified, he could work for change without
breaking his oath. But he choose to tell the world about a
document which can't not be established to exist. He had the
example of Major Keyhoe, but, of course, he did not learn from
history.
His "revelations" have not given us anything we can use or
verify. Nor has his revelations caused any change in official
policy. The whole thing has been a wash. We must accept it
on faith.
> 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.
You have not demonstrated anything unlawful in this document.
Because you do not agree with something, that does not give you
the right to break your oath. Your ideas of duty seem very
elastic. There is not inner higher authority. That is Timothy
McVeigh talk. The laws are written, and they are plain.
> We all know that the reality of the UFO/ET presence represents a major
> event in human history and development. The 'many' have been intentionally
> kept in the dark by the 'few', (a situation that is rapidly changing) and
> the (obvious) higher calling, (binding contract/oath if you will) lies with
> ones connection and responsibilty to the service and welfare of the
> majority. It is the very definition of a "soldiers" duties. The protection
> of the citizens of ones own nation.
None of the above is obvious. These are your theories and opinions.
> When viewed in this light Bob Dean becomes a true 'patriot' and a 'HERO' in
> the old fashioned sense of those words. It is why myself and so mmany other
> abductees have come forward and faced the formidable wrath and ridicule of
> the "public." Why do you think folks can tolerate that sort of thing? It is
> the higher calling, the conviction that as long as one tells the simple
> truth and does it for the benefit of ALL, there's no way to get hurt in the
> end. (Least wise I certainly hope so! <G> I'd like to live long enough to
> see us all vindicated.)
I don't pretend to have inside knowledge of the truth.
> You have called Bob a 'liar' Jan.
John, you have my quote right in front of you at the beginning of
this message, but you cannot even rephrase is accuarately. It is
not subtle. Since you did not get it the first time, I will
explain it again.
The NATO Top Secret document Dean talks about either exists,
or it doesn't. If it exists, it is protected lawfully and
by Dean's oath. He reports he decided to break his oath.
If it does not, exist then he is a teller of tall tales. That is
normally said to be a lair.
I did not say he was was a lair or an oath breaker, but he is one
or the other.
Dean defines the dilemma. He sets it up. I just pointed it out.
Do you often shot the messenger?
What I did say: is that in either case his creditability is damaged.
>That, is not only beneath you, but way out of character.
It is not out of character for me to demand work and
character of a high standard.
>If you have some evidence of lying or deception on the
> part of Robert Dean, then put it on the table and let's all have a look at
> it.
You had additional information in the post you chose to ignore.
> If not, then we should all take a good, long look at one of the things
> that breeds disunity and in-fighting within the UFO community.
John, you should take a good look what is written before you go
off half cocked.
> My trip to
> Roswell brought this home to me in a way that I had never percieved before.
> If we don't get our act together and stop tearing each other new assholes
> at every opportunity, we're (ALL) going to get caught with our pants down.
If UFOlogy wants to engage the general public, they must have
representatives and spokesmen who have creditability.
> Completely unprepared to deal with any "outside agency or force" because we
> are not together or unified among ourselves.
> Facts:
> 1. UFO sightings are up dramatically all over world.
> 2. Phoenix mass sighting: Everyone's been so busy arguing whether it was
> "real" or not that the question about "what it means" has escaped everyone.
> The Phoenix sighting that some of us have been jumping up and down about
> was a "Demonstration" folks, and a heavy duty "wake up call!"
> Let's stop acting like the "Donner party" and get our act together. I'm
> willing to do what I can to help bring some unity and coherence to the UFO
> community. It will take the will and determination of many to bring it
> into reality. I'm a firm believer in the axiom that we, "create our own
> reality, in agreement and conjunction with one another!"
> What kind of world do we want to create guys? Now _that_ is worthy of some
> serious thought.
> I got to meet, listen to, and shake Bob Deans hand while I was in Roswell.
> More important to me, I got to look into the man's eyes. I'm not Jean Dixon,
> and I _could_ be completely wrong, but I got the strong sense that Bob is
> an honest and sincere guy. As any American (or fair minded person) should,
> Bob Dean is to be considered _completely_ innocent of perpetrating any lies
> or deceptions until evidence to the contrary has been presented, and the
> judgement of his peers has been heard. (In an open hearing where Bob Dean
> can answer any charges and face his accusers directly).
> Least ways that's what I thought we were all about. This "internet
> character assassination" without the presentation of "evidence" in
> accompanyment is new to me man! Anybody can say anything about anybody.
> Without proof, it's all just so much 'rap' Jan, I'll tell you like Cuba
> Gooding told Tom Cruise, "Show me the money!" <G>
John, you also selective dealt with my post. Quotes attributed
to Dean said:
1. He was in North Viet Nam during his Service. I doubt if
his Service record reflects that. So once again why bring it up?
It is another way to damage creditability.
2. He said he got good assignments because of his Top Secret
clearance. This is incorrect. Having a clearance or the ability
to get a clearance is a factor. However, that is not how
people are selected for assignment.
3. Cosmic Top Secret is not a clearance. It is access.
It is not annotated on a clearance form, personnel records,
and once a person leaves a unit it ceases to exist. Dean has
misrepresented that constantly.
Others on this and other lists have made comments that
security oaths are technically not binder. Or the best
one I heard is Corso: His oath was to his boss so when
the General died Corso was release. If you believe the
system works like that, I have a bridge; I can sell you
cheap.
As far as oaths not being binding: go home tonight and tell your
spouse you think that marriage vows are fine, but you think that
you ought to be able to seek out the favors of other attractive
members of the opposite sex....or decide that the mortgage
covenant on your home is wrong and stopping making payments...
Oaths are indeed important that they are a demonstration of
our honor.
As a 25 year Service member, I resent the crass misuse and
misrepresentation of the Service.
Jan Aldrich
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com