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 -> Nov -> Here

From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 13:33:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 00:10:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking


>Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:51:51 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Keith Stevens <k.stevens@virgin.net>
>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking

>>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 00:37:39 -0500
>>From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking

>>While I do not doubt that you have some experience in the
>>"secret document" area and have trouble believing what several
>>credible people have testified to under their own names.

>>So what. You just have to get over it.

>>You know, I also had trouble believing that the CIA had run
>>drugs in Southeast Asia and had hired terrorists to mine the
>>harbors of nations we were not at war with.

>>But, you know, my "belief" had nothing to do with it because
>>these things happened, were testified to by credible people
>>under their own names, documented and independently verified.

>>Do you know of any nation which has not had its secure documents
>>compromised?

>>Weren't those classified documents found in Aldrich Ames' home?
>>The inside operative is toughest to find as James Angleton knew
>>to well.

>>How about the voluminous amount of documents transferred by
>>Pollard to our embarrassment.

>>As to your statement "I find it very hard to believe that anyone
>>would admit to having a copy of this particular document". Well
>>all of these men - Ruppelt, Keogh and Hynek did go on record
>>saying they had read the document and at least transiently had a
>>copy of it.

>>Wishful thinking won't solve the questions raised. Your dog
>>doesn't hunt.

>>Gary

Keith,

You have raised some good points which need to be addressed.

>Hi Gary and list

>The trouble with using the activities of the CIA as examples is
>that you are talking here of mostly established facts.These are
>all out in the Public domain.The story fully(?)documented
>now.The same goes for Aldrich Ames.In his case he-never-openly
>claimed to have any documents in his possession prior to his
>arrest.

As far as Aldrich Ames - "never openly claimed to have documents
in his possession prior to his arrest". Well that is a
nonsequitur. I can't quite imagine any traitor intelligence
employee making such a claim prior to his arrest either.
Nonetheless the arresting agencies, FBI and CIA did claim that
he had removed physical, classified documents he had access to
and that physical documents were recovered from his home at the
time of his arrest. This has been documented in news accounts
and books written about this case. The point I am making here is
that although there are procedures and legalities regarding the
handling of these documents, people can and do violate them.
Using established facts as examples doesn't exactly stretch the
credibility of the reader. Most people have enough experience
from their own lives in understanding the wide range of human
behaviours. Are you one would believe that because a rule or law
has been established that those are themselves enough to
proscribe those behaviours from ever happening?

Also let's not forget to note the the 6x10 foot room of
documents that our government likes publicize was removed by
Pollard. I wonder who was actually assigned the task of making
those measurements before this information was offered to a
journalist.

>No I feel that in this particular case we are not talking about
>a substantiated event but an unsubstantiated event. As of yet
we >still do not have the Document which would prove the case!
All >we have are unsupported claims by various individuals that
they >have seen it.

>Now I am not saying that they are making false claims,far from
>it.The exceptional does sometimes happen.However from my
>own,admittedly modest 17 years, Military Service experience,I
>find it very hard to believe that a doubtless Top Secret
>Document has been down graded to Unclassified status immediately
>prior to destruction,and,that-if- a copy of this Unclassified
>Document does indeed exit why has it not been shown in public?
>To me it makes little sense.

You may not have seen my posting which addresses this issue,
trying to make sense of information about individuals, documents
and procedures which is difficult to understand. I had posted
this explanation scenario under a new subject "The Estimate of
the Situation - As A Ticking Time Bomb". Here is the relevant
explanation from that posting. Based on the information
available to me at this time, this makes a lot of sense (to me
at least, hey, I posted it!). So let's hear what does and
doesn't support this scenario.

abstracted from:

The Estimate of the Situation - As A Ticking Time Bomb

Copyright (C) 1998 Gary Alevy

There was a problem with the Estimate of the Situation written
by PROJECT SIGN, a problem that may not be at all apparent to
civilians, patriotic minded individuals and even those with
military experience; the Estimate was an "ordinary" TOP SECRET
document. How can a TOP SECRET document be "ordinary"? The
answer lies in understanding that military considerations and
documents are not really the utmost consideration of those at
the top of the pyramid, they are but a means to an end. Even
what becomes a military consideration is often defined by others
outside the military chain of command. This is not to belittle
the role of the military rather it is a realistic recognition
the role the military plays in the republican form of government
in these United States. Moreover, these kinds of documents are
subject to leak and counter-leak within the military itself or
confiscation by means of espionage. The creators of the Estimate
document took their job seriously, without any baggage due to
"outside considerations" of the kind that Alphabet Agencies
(intelligence agencies, e.g. FBI, CIA, etc.) and others
(politicians, world leaders, religious leaders, etc.) typically
are concerned with. That is, ATIC was concerned only with
military security, in the here and NOW, and was not creating or
"spinning" their document for a boss really near or at the top
of the pyramid outside the military, or worried about
higher-order political, social, international or even worldwide
problems that UFO revelations might present to the government,
society or humanity as a whole. The Estimate spoke plain
English, a fatal flaw, and "proved" that UFOs were the real
deal, of some kind, whether or not they were "interplanetary".

The military, by its nature, wants to do something NOW about a
problem, and there WAS a problem. There is no doubt, even as
early as the time of the Estimate that the UFO problem had
become so important that the regular military was not going to
be allowed to deal with it anymore. Only the very secretest,
personnel and organizations were going to be allowed to do that.

"Tippy-top" scientists (scientists of high order with
backgrounds in intelligence) like Howard Robertson who had
served as General Eisenhower's science advisor at SHAEF, well,
they may have been aware of other information and playing
another game, along with their tippy-top secret bosses in the
Alphabet Agencies and elsewhere. What else can explain what
happened in 1953, when a panel (the Robertson Panel, Ruppelt's
panel of experts) consisting of the best secret scientists in
the inventory (with intelligence and military backgrounds, e.g.
Howard Robertson, Louis Alvarez, Samuel Goudsmit, etc.) blew the
UFO out of the water and denied it respectability with everyone,
the regular military being only one of many. How could the
Robertson panel have done this when ostensibly no scientific
investigation had been completed? Well it is obvious -- the REAL
investigation was by then complete, or nearly so, and no help
was required from anyone (including the military) who was not a
part of the empire served by the then secret Alphabet Agencies.

Now we can see why the Estimate was not made public after its
declassification; to do so would have been ruinous to anyone
contemplating a career anywhere in the vast caverns of
government employment or the outside military, industrial and
consultancy organizations that work hand-in-hand with
government. One would have to be brain dead not to realize that
a "declassify-then-burn" order had to have been applied to a
very dangerous document indeed. Indeed, it is fascinating that
Ruppelt even mentioned it, even in the diluted way that he did.
It makes one wonder who might have been steered onto the
Estimate as a result of The Report and whether such "steerage"
was one of the effects Ruppelt intended. Remember, Ruppelt later
repudiated in 1959, under duress many said, nearly everything he
wrote in the original edition of his book which was published in
1956. Then he had a heart attack in 1960, an event that many
might have contemplated to their benefit as the years of the
Arnold Age unrolled and passed into the history books.

--- end of abstract

As a brief aside I would also like to point out some little
known background about Dr. Howard Robertson, who was appointed
the head of the Robertson Panel.

During WWII Robertson was head of the Scientific Intelligence
Advisory Section under SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied
Expeditionary Forces) and also served General Eisenhower as a
scientific adviser at USFET (United States Forces European
Theater) headquarters. He was also chief of the scientific
branch of FIAT of the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency and a
member of the Alsos Commission.

As recently as 1997 Gerald Haines, a historian for the CIA,
stated for the record that the scientists on the Robertson Panel
were non-military. [Haines, Gerald K. Studies in Intelligence
Vol.1 No.1, 1997. CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90 (A
Die Hard Issue)Langley, Central Intelligence Agency,1997.]
Although Haines was unable to state the facts correctly about
the background of the chairman of the Robertson Panel,
information available in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Haines
now works at the NRO as its historian. To my knowledge it has
not yet been revealed who were the individuals who selected
Robertson to head the panel. Ruppelt mentions four "scientists"
but never named them or the organization they worked for.
Perhaps an updates reader is familiar with this
aspect of the history of the panel.

>You will doubtless realize that I have not tried to cast any
>doubts on the documents reality.Its simply that I find the
>claimed final down grading,destruction and subsequent non
>revelation as totally unbelievable. Would someone please prove me
>wrong.

Ah, yes this all hinges on what one considers proof. Clearly you
do not consider the testimony of these individuals - Hynek,
Keogh and Ruppelt totally believable. Are you one who would
suggest that our judiciary system should not rely on testimony?

Yes it is pretty easy to state that you just don't find it
believable and you don't think they are liars (maybe you do?).
Well then offer your explanation for the situation as described
by Ruppelt, the others who have claimed to have read the
estimate and the historical record. Offer this for the public
perusal of updates readers, that's what we are here for - aside
from being entertained by the personal attack and counterattacks
of the recognized ufologists on this list.

Are you searching for "smoking gun" documentation? Then you
ought to read the following abstracted from:

Moynihan, Daniel P. (Chairman) The Commission on Protecting and
Reducing Government Secrecy

Senate Doc. 105-2
Washington, D.C. 1997.

Here is my commentary on a portion of this important document
which updates readers should be familiar with.

On page XXXI of the Chairman's Foreword is a discussion which
documents how truly secret information in government which is
never intended to see the light of day is only transmitted
verbally and is never committed to paper and ink. This
discussion and example are provided below. Another relevant
example of the application of the verbal secrecy technique was
its utilization by General Leslie Groves for the development of
the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project. With these
examples in mind we feel it is logical to deduce that there is
little to no hope for the smoking gun, secret single document to
reveal the UFO mystery, if Moynihan's discussion and the Grove's
example don't make clear why, then you'll never understand why.
What Moynihan's discussion does hold hope for is that research
and analysis can pull together a reasonable scenario based on
second tier docments, created by the the "grunts" stamping on
overtime; and human accounts. This is the path we are following
in this book; the key here is to have a clear understanding of
how intelligence bureaucracies work, possess a wide ranging
knowledge of the subject matter, in this case UFOs, and then
apply critical analysis to the relevant information with the
purpose of building the scenario mentioned above. Also see pages
8-9 of the Commission's report for an illuminating discussion of
the role of leaks and counterleaks in the struggle by proponents
and opponents in the establishment of contested policy. "It is
now almost routine for American officials of unquestioned
loyalty to reveal classified information as part of ongoing
policy disputes, with one camp leaking information in support of
a particular view, or to the detriment of another, or in support
of settled administration policy." Does the history of the UFO
field offer examples of leaks and counterleaks? This conclusion
is inescapable after careful consideration of the information
and misinformation that the field nearly drowns in from time to
time which has emanated from government and quasi-governmental
sources.

>From page XXXI:

"Over the course of 80 years, notably in the later period, a
vast system of secrecy developed within the American Government.
So much that it has been termed a culture of secrecy. The system
grew so vast, however, that it began to appear unavailing.
Secrecy has been defined as "the compulsory withholding of
information, reinforced by the prospect of sanctions for
disclosure." Almost everything was declared secret; not
everything remained secret, and there were no sanctions for
disclosure. In the course of 1996, the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the United States Senate carried out a detailed
inquiry into the decision by the President not to object to the
shipment of arms to Bosnia by way of Croatia. A notable aspect
of this decision was that it was never put in writing. The
Deputy Secretary of State explained this to the Committee in
these terms:


   Another reason that diplomatic transactions and internal
deliberations do not end up on paper is because of the extreme
sensitivity of the subject matter. What goes down on paper is
more likely to come out in public, in inappropriate and harmful
ways, harmful to the national interest.


This, of course, is a privilege of the privileged within the
system. For the grunts the rule is stamp, stamp, stamp.

--- end of page XXXI

>Finally with regards to your 'Dog' analogy,in this particular
>case this 'Dog' keeps hunting.......for the truth!.....its out
>there!

Aren't we all. However I rather doubt that catch phrases from
television shows and and the inspiration of taglines will reveal
"truth".


Gary Alevy