UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: DRudiak@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:03:54 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:40:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Secrets of Literary History - Brookesmith
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:09:36 -0400
>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Secrets of Literary History
>To: Errol Bruce Knapp <updates@globalserve.net>
>> From: DRudiak@aol.com [David Rudiak]
>> Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 13:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
>>Fwd Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 14:00:36 -0400
>>Subject: Brookesmith Smears Marcel
> A recent cursory glance at the UpDates Website suggests that most of
>this gripe by David Rudiak about my treatment of poor victimized
>Jesse Marcel
What Peter Brookesmith wrote was nothing less than a character assassination
of Jesse Marcel that went on for several pages in his new book ("UFO, the
Government Files"). Would anybody know from reading Brookesmith that Marcel
received great praise for his intelligence work and personal integrity in
evaluations written AFTER Roswell by commanding officers like Col. Blanchard
and Gen. Ramey, both of whom knew what happened at Roswell? Of course not!
Brookesmith was simply parroting Robert Todd, and Todd left that out. It
was very obvious from reading Brookesmith that he had done no original
research at all. He read Robert Todd's hit piece on Marcel, and voila! All
of a sudden he was an expert on Marcel's military record and Marcel's deepest
psychological motivations. And this from an author who misidentified a photo
of Irving Newton (Ramey's weather officer) as being Jesse Marcel in an
earlier book.
Maybe Brookesmith can explain why such an incompetent, liar, and "fantasist"
(Brookesmith's word) would subsequently be transferred to HIGHER intelligence
work in the very sensitive, top secret Special Weapons Program, put in charge
of a staff that analyzed the latest changes in intelligence on Soviet nuclear
capabilities, and then prepared special briefings and wrote special reports
for the higher brass. That's all in his military file, along with the
excellent evaluations he received for his work, all of it AFTER Roswell.
>has been dealt with by others, notably John Stepkowski,
> while I was away and off-line.
No, not really. He took a stab at it, but presented no real evidence of any
of the things you or he accuse Marcel of doing. I'm writing a response to
Stepkowski, but it's hard to respond to something that was many dozens of
pages long, meandered all over the place, and covered about 100 different
topics, only part of it related to Marcel.
>For which thanks; which all and sundry may take as notice that I'm not
going to >rehearse the whole business again.
Nice dodge. To me, this amounts to an admission that you can't or won't
defend your own work.
> Now Mr Rudiak may think what he likes of my report of Robert
> Todd's research (duly acknowledged on page 156 of my book, so
> altogether honestly "swiped directly from Robert Todd"),
I absolutely DID NOT accuse Brookesmith of plagarizing from Robert Todd,
since he clearly acknowledged Todd as his source as he gushed over his
"expose'." I accused Brookesmith of parroting his arguments, doing no
original research to verify the information, making a number of factual
errors, and failing to present a balanced portrait. A quick look at Marcel's
personnel file would have told anybody that Todd grossly distorted the
contents. There's no excuse, e.g., not mentioning Marcel's evaluations both
before and after Roswell, indicating how highly regarded he was by his
superior officers. Gen. Ramey called his intelligence work "outstanding" a
year AFTER Roswell, and thought he would make a future command officer.
Blanchard used phrases like "exceptionally well-qualified," "highly
dependable," "superior moral qualities," "highly recommended for intelligence
work at higher level."
Again this was all written AFTER the Roswell events. Yet according to
Brookesmith, Todd, Korff, etc., Marcel was an incompetent intelligence
officer who couldn't even identify ordinary materials, and because of some
sort of emotional instability and lack of regard for the chain of command,
personally issued the crashed disk press release, thus embarrassing his
superior officers and the Air Force. It is therefore absolutely amazing
that nothing like this shows up in his subsequent evaluations. The Air Force
must be a very forgiving organization which deals with its rash and bungling
intelligence officers by kicking them upstairs to higher intelligence work.
I guess they never heard of the term "security risk" back then.
Of course, this is all logically preposterous. That's why I haven't seen
one debunker dare to deal with it.
>and call me a liar if he likes to do that too,
Well, since he insists. In the course of recycling Todd's arguments,
Brookesmith did clearly lie about (1) Marcel having no radar tracking
experience, and (2) Marcel claiming to be the sole survivor of a plane crash
during WWII. Not only are these statements incorrect, they even contradict
what Todd wrote.
Marcel did in fact have "radar tracking" experience, since he took a
month-long radar intelligence course which taught exactly that, among other
things. It's very well documented in his record and even acknowledged by
Todd. How could Brookesmith have missed that? Todd's accusation that Marcel
had no familiarity with radar targets, however, is based on ZERO evidence,
nothing more than an assertion apparently based on psychic abilities. Of
course, Peter Brookesmith simply parroted Todd's remarks.
And Marcel NEVER claimed to be the sole survivor of a plane crash, no matter
how badly one might interpret his one brief statement about it. Brookesmith
claimed it was the mark of a "fantasist" to say one is the sole survivor
(even though Marcel never said any such thing). Interestingly, Todd says
exactly the opposite, using the same sort of inane amateur psychoanalysis.
After first admitting to having ZERO evidence that Marcel lied about being
shot down, Todd asserts Marcel would have claimed to be one of the victims if
he could have gotten away with it. So the Marcel debunker's can't even get
their psycho-foolishness straight. But I guess when you're debunking, it's a
fundamental rule to stake out all positions, no matter how contradictory.
That way Marcel would be damned one way or the other no matter what he said
or didn't say.
>since I suppose it must make him a happier man than if he did not, and I am
all for >happiness if you can find it.
Character assassination brings such joy into debunkers' lives. Who could be
against that?
>But when he suggests none too subtly that I am a plagiarist I do raise an
eyebrow.
I do cop to that. Let's just say that at the moment I wrote this I was very
ticked off with Peter Brookesmith over his extremely dishonest handling of
Marcel. But I also acknowledged that there might be an innocent explanation
for the amazing similarity of UFO accounts in Reuben Stone's and
Brookesmith's later book, such as Brookesmith collaborating with Stone on his
book (although there's no mention to that effect in Stone's book -- I
looked). As it turns out, that's what Brookesmith says happened.
> Mr Rudiak may consider the following to be disinformation. He is entitled
to his >opinion, although it does not follow, from that, that his opinion is
worth very much.
> I first became acquainted with Reuben Stone (which is not his real
> name either, by the way) in somewhat noisy and alarming circumstances
> in October 1973. ..
>... I agreed to pen the UFO volume in the series for him, on the
understanding that I
> might use the material in my own work in due course.
>...Not many people know that.
So Brookesmith collaborated with Stone, even wrote the UFO section. I accept
the explanation as is, even without documentation. Sounds plausible to me.
Too bad Marcel didn't get the same consideration. He may have had a few
plausible explanations himself. Dead men, however, have a hard time
defending themselves.
> Mr Rudiak may or may not find brightness in a drab, wretched
> existence by fulminating about people who, he considers, don't do
> their research properly and parrot opinions and so forth.
So perhaps Mr. Brookesmith would care to share the proper research he did on
Jesse Marcel before fulminating about him. Did he even bother to read
Marcel's military file for himself to see if it was accurately portrayed by
Todd? Did he even care?
<Bizarre closing rant about black helicopters, etc. deleted>
I can understand Peter Brookesmith being angry with me, particularly about
the accusation of plagiarism on the Stone book. But when you slice through
all the rest of his garish British rhetorical style, you'll find that he
doesn't have one thing to say in his defense about what he wrote on Marcel.
And that is what 95+% of my original tract was about.
[David Rudiak]
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