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 -> 1998 -> Jun -> Here

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 22:39:13 PDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:49:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Who is Jerome Clark?


> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 19:24:00 -0500 (CDT)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Who is Jerome Clark?

> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
> >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Who is Jerome Clark?
> >Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 10:42:49 PDT

> <snip>

> >It is unfair, not to mention false, to characterize Stan Friedman
> >-- or Donald Keyhoe, for that matter; Mr. Brookesmith also
> >mentioned him in the same breath -- as a conspiracy theorist.
> >Stan's view, like Keyhoe's (and my own, for that matter, at least
> >on some days), is that a small official group of individuals with
> >the proper clearances and need to know is holding significant UFO
> >secrets.  Stan was an early and forceful critic of the real
> >conspiracy theorists (Lear, Cooper, and their ilk), who conjure
> >up a Secret Government not only hiding UFO truths but controlling
> >the world.

> <snip>

> All well and good, Jerry, but no one, you and Friedman included,
> has ever explained how this "small official group of
> individuals" would operate in reality. Or, for that matter, how
> it could have remained small in light of so much "significant
> UFO secrets" (Roswell crash, possible bodies, and dare I say
> abductions?) to withhold. Friedman at least admits that he
> believes ET wreckage was recovered 50 years ago at Roswell,
> bodies possibly included, and that something very much like
> MJ-12 arose in its wake.

Dennis,

Really, this is a whole different subject from the issue I was
addressing: namely, the difference between someone who believes
governments keep secrets and those who believe in a Secret
Government in control of the world.  Moreover, I wasn't
discussing crashed saucers.  I am certain I never even mentioned
the phrase.

> Do you believe in MJ-12, even if only rhetorically, as the small
> group of individuals withholding significant UFO secrets, and if
> so, isn't that pretty much the definition of a conspiracy to
> cover-up and withhold?

Naw. Just secret-keeping, not the same as conspiracy-maintaining.
The former is much easier to do, for one thing.

> But how could bodies and recovered ET technology be limited to
> such a small official group of individuals with the proper
> clearances and need to know? If you had this sort of secret in
> your possession, you would bring in the people necessary to
> ultimately solve the problem, no matter how many were required,
> just as happened with the Manhattan Project. You wouldn't keep
> the investigating (or, rather, "knowledgeable") group small just
> *because* the evidence was so monumental in its importance. Just
> the opposite.

Actually, to repeat: if you go back to read my post, I did not
say "crashed- saucer wreckage." I said "UFO secrets" or somesuch
general term.

> In fact, if anything remotely resembling
> Roswell-as-half-advertized had actually happened, there would be
> no way that a small official group of individuals could clamp a
> lid on anything -- because they could never be sure that another
> Roswell wouldn't happen the next month or year anywhere in the
> country or the world, thus invalidating the "secret." They would
> had to have had at least a local contingency plan for any
> possible scenario, say, the crash of another UFO in downtown
> Cincinatti or Cleveleand, as opposed to the conveniently remote
> desert Southwest.

I really think you ought to take this up with Stan, Kevin, Bruce,
and others, who have given the specifically crashed-saucer
question, which is the focus of all your remarks, far more
concentrated thought than I have.  I was thinking more generally,
of less contentious stuff such as jet intercepts, gun-camera
films, and the rest, where we have a lot of testimony and no
paper trail.

Cheers,

Jerry Clark