UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: James A Diss <76710.234@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 20 May 97 16:51:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 22:47:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunker Containment Strategy?
>Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 01:33:17 -0400
>From: Gary <galevy@pipeline.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunker Containment Strategy?
Gary penned;
>Even if you were deliberately spreading incorrect information
>it does not entitle you to any goverment position, do you often
>fantasize about working for the government?
Well, actually I did for a while, but then I understand that
there are a huge number of people involved in government, then
support services, industries etc. I fantasise about world peace,
but I understand that doesn't make me a bad person. Y'see I drew
the parallel from a comment you made that I'll reproduce below;
>>Oh and as to the government only having a
>>"nodding acquaitance" with the UFO phenomenon
>>- that's either ignorance or intentional deception
The inference of 'intentional deception' is usually called
'disinformation', with 'ignorance' getting the almost similar
'misinformation'. I can understand that their impact has been
somewhat reduced, but I did slightly resent the 'shoot first,
ask questions later' method of debate. No matter, we'll just
move on.
>There are many other explanations for this behavior,
>counter-intelligence agent isn't necessarily in the top ten.
Please give us a rundown of the top-ten. I'll even let you
know if you're close.
>Thats a pretty inappropriate response, your usual let's waste the time
>of people on this list by dodging the issue.
Actually a less than direct challenge than the paragraph
above. Tell me whether it's dis or mis, Gary.
>You extrapolate just to ignore the point that you were wrong in your
>original statement.
Answer me this one, so we don't get entrenched into
gainsaying for fun and profit. How many classified
projects lasted thirty years (the 1995 Clinton HR cut-off
date and a well known intelligence 'benchmark') before
they ended up leaked or revealed?
How many fifty year old ones?
>I know that scientists were involved but you tried to convey in your
>original post that goverment scientists weren't involved. So when a
>point of fact is made that shows your statement was erroneous you are
>off on a tangent about an irrelevant topic. Perhaps you have difficulty
>focusing on a topic.
Hang on a cotton pickin' minute here. Just because the
government commissions a report on the Greenhouse effect
doesn't mean they're au fait with the complexities
involved, Indeed the republicans tried to reduce the
committment to recording such changes as unproven science.
Government's record on supporting scientific research in
ANY country has been bitty, misinformed and in some cases
downright ludicrous. Teller was brought in as a _consultant_.
Hynek was brought in as a _consultant_.
If you have doubts about this, then check with Alan Holt
how much support was given to him during the investigation
of Cash-Landrum and how much interest his field propulsion
has received from AIAA. I was suggesting that _evidence_
suggests that governmental agencies have a 'nodding
aquaintance' rather than the indepth interest claimed by
some proponents of government coverup. I take it that you
don't think that _tonnes_ of paperwork should have been
generated over crashed disks? Given the fact that items
of interest become declassified by accident, then hastily
reclassified, don't you think we should have stumbled across
more than _one_ mention of Majic/Majestic?
>Why acknowledge something that you originally stated didn't exist?
Where did I state they didn't exist? Kindly quote
the passage back to me.
>Is there any integrity in the statements you post to this list?
Bucketloads, but you have to read them.
>I'm losing faith that I'll be able to
>read your posts without doing fact checking.
You don't already? Why I could claim that I have aliens in
a jar and you'd believe me?
Gee, and here I was thinking that there was a propensity
for checking things out here.
>Another irrelevant response, speak man whats really on your mind?
Hypocrisy, mainly. Our posts may cross on this subject, so
I'll let it lie for a moment.
>Let's play a game, I'll answer no so you can show everyone how clever
>you are.
Sorry Gary. You seem to be so entrenched in glib and flip
comments regarding weighty documents that seek to tighten
security that I doubt you'd appreciate that non-US intelligence
services have anything to contribute to the subject.
BTW, thanks for the reference to the Moynihan documents.
It's providing an interesting read, but as I see it, it
will serve to tighten security around areas of interest
to the list and reduce the chances of leakage from representatives
trying to score points. It has a charming naivete in
terms of 'information theft' failing to nail the single
crux that hacking is proportional to the system involved
and the relative protection applied. I note with interest
that Edward Condon was fingered as having Communist leanings
though.
Any chance we could debate this rather than having to
defend myself, my integrity and my fantasies?
James A Diss
----------------------
HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting
This Product, Since Its Mass, and Thus Its
Weight, Is Dependent on Its Velocity Relative
to the User.
--------------------
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