Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jul -> Here

From: meccam@erols.com
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:07:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:18:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Project 1947 - Robert Dean


> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:36:00 -0700
> From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 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

> Big snip>

> 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.

> 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.

Wait just a damn fool minute, Jan - ever read 1984?  Ever live in a
totalitarian state?  Do you think the government is telling us most, or
even some, of what they know about ETs? Do you think that is justified,
allowing people to live entire lives in a totally false sense of
reality, focused on their retirement cottage and RV?  Ever think of what
your decisions would have been, let's just take an extreme case, if you
were a dutiful German soldier assigned to death camp duty?
Would you honor your oath and Heil Hitler, or go AWOL?  Socrates drank
the hemlock, living to the end the laws of Athens, but most of us
believe in a higher inner standard of integrity.  Once it becomes clear
that our allegiance was to a cardboard cutout with non-benevolent
motives, one's own conscience must be one's guide - do you not believe
that there may be deeper criteria for honor than the laws of one
country?

I can't prove whether he read that document or not, and if he turned out
to be a total sham I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.  However, since
the experience re-oriented his entire life from that time on, I'd tend
to agree with John Mack's statement that in evaluating the reality of
cases, he gives most emphasis to the emotional impact it has on the
person.  SOMETHING made a huge impact on Bob Dean's entire world view
and started him on an impassioned 30 year study of the subject.  He
faked 30 years of great effort and dedication simply to pull the wool
over your eyes or grab a few moments on the stage?  Another alternaitve
may be that Bob Dean obeyed a higher law, or can't your perspective
stretch beyond one single country and its limited controlling
viewpoint?  How 'bout trying on the view that he knew himself to be a
global citizen, and judged it best for the greater good to reveal what
he knew, sincerely believing it to be the truth?  How 'bout looking
upwards and outwards to the greater realities and the universe at large
before you presume to judge people?

I don't know about you, but considering these arguments academically it
is always preferable to advance counter-arguments about a philosophy or
system from within - attacks from without, personal attacks or refusal
to entertain the assumptions from which the person is advancing
theories, is a pretty cheap shot and unworthy of an open-minded person.
I prefer to take in what an author or speaker is saying, accept their
assumptions, suspend disbelief while learning what they have to say,
contemplate the implications of their information and point of view, and
then let the conclusions take form gradually over time.  That results in
saying "I can't verify, but if it's true, then...." alot when asked what
I think about this one or that one's stories or credibility.  So far as
I know, no one in this field is infallible, and no one singly has the
Total Perspective.  It's a long patient work to piece it all together -
we may never achieve it.  We weren't in the vault.  We didn't get
abducted along with Linda Cortile.  We weren't witnesses to the crashed
Roswell craft.  Even the perfect researcher cannot be everywhere at once
- humans are not yet omnipresent or multi-dimensional.  Deciding who to
believe, and how much to believe, is a difficult and ongoing task.

I do draw conclusions, however.  Example:  I heard Whitley Strieber
speak for the second time in Roswell, have read all of his books
carefully, and have visited his web site a lot.  After hearing him in
Roswell, it was clear to me that he has nothing further to teach me.
(If he wants to get back in the thick of things, then instead of
publishing a book full of other people's letters, as interesting as that
may be, I think he should move back to upstate New York where most of
the major events occurred! :)).

Again, I have no way to verify Bob Dean's truthfulness or the lack of
it, but what I did get from his talk is a strong sense of good
intentions and a feeling that he was a caring person - did not pick up
deceit or "fame freak" vibes.  I suspend judgement about the source of
his claims, and would suggest to you that you don't need to drag him
through the mud.  People will make up their own mind about him in their
own time.

Errol runs a great list, but some members just cannot seem to resist
spitting venom like a cobra as if everyone but themselves are prey, all
in the name of seeking the truth.  Go figure!

Melanie