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 -> 1999 -> May -> Here

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:08:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 04:09:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Protocol Bookburning Conspiracy



>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Protocol Bookburning Conspiracy
>Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 14:26:31 -0300

>>Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 00:25:21 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Protocol Bookburning Conspiracy

>>To no one in particular:

>>There are two items (which isn't to say there aren't more) of
>>which ufology must seriously and finally disabuse itself if it
>>ever hopes to gain the widespread scientific support it so
>>eagerly and allegedly seeks.

>>The first of these is the notion that some sort of
>>comprehensive, coordinated, air-tight conspiracy is in place now
>>and has always been. That is, that MJ-12, or something very
>>similar to same, exists, and has somehow been able to cover up
>>the "truth" worldwide for nigh on half a century. Such a notion
>>is absurd on its face.

>>The second absurd assumption, also taken for granted by many
>>ufologists, portrays a world besieged by a massive invasion of
>>human-abducting, sperm-sucking, egg-extracting aliens, 3-4
>>million, by some accounts, in this country alone.

>>Stand back from both of these "claims" for just a minute or two
>>and see if the patent absurdity of both doesn't wash over you
>>like a breath of fresh, reinvigorating air.

>>Common sense tells you that neither assertion has a hope of
>>being true.

>>That's right, simple common sense. Has everyone forgotten what
>>common sense is _for_?

>>Or is it something that we're all supposed to check at the UFO
>>front door? And then wonder why the scientific community isn't
>>overly eager to do the same?

>>What _were_ you people thinking?

>Common sense and paying attention to what information is
>available about keeping secrets says you are blowing in the
>wind. Nobody says the secret keeping "conspiracy" was air tight.
>Look at the loads of information around. But notice how little
>TOP SECRET or compartmented information has been releasd about
>UFOs. Blue Book Special Report 14 covers 3201 signtings.. but
>none that were highly classsified. Are you forgetting that data
>obtained by ADC, NSA, NRO,DIA etc is born classified?.For
>example, there is little published about UFO flights over
>nuclear weapons storage areas.

Stanton,

If I'm blowing in the wind, so are you. Note that my original
post referred to a _worldwide_ cover up. Orchestrated by who and
how? You haven't got a clue because there ain't no such animal,
no matter how the US classifies or comparmentalizes its own
information. You missed the point completely, which doesn't
wholly surprise me.

>It is interesting that there was nothing published about the
>enigma code-breaking work so vital to winning WW 2 for 30 years,
>though 12,000 people were involved!. There was nothing published
>about the Corona reconaissance satellites launched from 1960 on,
>until more than 30 years later even though there were almost a
>dozen failures to begin with and even though thousands of people
>were involved. The NRO was established by a TOP SECRET Executive
>Order in 1962. There was nothing in public for well over a
>decade..Annual Budget estimated at $8Billion. The DCI admitted
>to a black budget of 26.6 Billon dollars a couple of years back.
>Do you really think nothing can be kept secret?.

You just mentioned several highly classified things that
_weren't_ keep secret (or were subsequently revealed in an
unambiguous fashion) and then asked me if anything could be kept
secret. There's your answer right there. In effect, no. Kept
secret for awhile, yes, no one disputes that; kept secret
forever, no way.

You forget that the Manhattan Project was infiltrated early on.
You forget that the Chinese just walked away with virtually
every nuclear secret in our arsenal. You forget that there were
only 15 copies of the Pentagon Papers -- and one of them wound
up being published in the NY Times. You forget that Corona,
MK-ULTRA, and the NRO have now all been made public.

So what secret(s) _is_ being kept to this very day? UFOs, of
course, because that conveniently suits your career on the
lecture circuit. And what has been leaked? There is not one
convincing, unambiguous document that would lead anyone to
believe that anything remotely resembling MJ-12 exists in any
form or fashion _in this day and age_.

>Common sense tells us that based on the history of successful
>secrecy over the past 60 years, and the arrogance of press
>people who think that if something were happening, they would
>know about it, that of course secrets can be kept.. Where have
>you been? How much time did you spend working on highly
>classified programs.? I hate to use  the old refrain, but
>absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence for absence.

>Stan Friedman (Gone until June 2)

What "successful secrecy"?  I hate to use an equally old
refrain, but all of the previous highly classified, supersecret
programs you mentioned are now widely known, if only in
generalities as opposed to specifics. Where's our UFO
whistleblower? Tim Cooper? To laugh. Richard Doty? To laugh.

As for "absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence for absence,"
you've dined out on that canard long enough, up to and including
the free spaghetti you're eating in San Marino, Italy, this
week. (Hope you showed them those tired NSA slides of yours.)

It's your theme song, something you sing everytime someone asks
you where your evidence is. When cornered with bad, dubious or
duplicitous evidence you trot it out like a mantra, like a pit
bull promoting Taco Bell.

Where was Kent Lorenzo's negative Roswell testimony in any of
your books or writings? Yet you apparently talked to him as
early as 1992, but didn't like what he had to say (NOT!) about
alien bodies at Roswell, did you? Where's any mention in your
books and writings about the negative findings Tom Deuley and I
turned up about the alleged El Indio-Guerrero crash mentioned in
the patently spurious MJ-12 briefing? Missing in action, aren't
they, although I'm sure Deuley's kept you well informed about
our three visits to
the area?

So who's keeping secrets here? Seems you're keeping some of
your own, Stan, especially those that go against your argument.

Dennis