909 lines
56 KiB
Plaintext
909 lines
56 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: WHO'S DISINFORMING WHOM ? FILE: UFO2535
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Originally by Don Allen
|
|
* Originally dated 31 Aug 1993, 0:36
|
|
|
|
Dear Folks,
|
|
|
|
What follows is Bruce Maccabee's rebuttal to the recently posted AIR #1 Report
|
|
put out by the 'Associated Investigators Group'. In addition, are two letters,
|
|
one by Richard Hall, the current chairman of the Fund For UFO Research (FUFOR)
|
|
and one by Bill Moore, that are also rebuttals to the AIR report.
|
|
|
|
Bruce Maccabee's letter contained extensive use of italics. These italics have
|
|
been denoted within brackets [..] . I also took the liberty of correcting small
|
|
typo errors that appeared in the original. Nothing major, and it doesn't affect
|
|
the content.
|
|
|
|
===========================================================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 9, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Ufologist,
|
|
|
|
You have recently received a copy of the Associated Investigator's Report
|
|
(AIR) #1, "published" by the Associated Investigators Group (AIG). This report
|
|
was mailed directly to over 100 people known to be interested in UFO research,
|
|
although, it was not mailed to me nor to many of the other "attackees"
|
|
discussed in the paper. The initial recipients subsequently mailed copies to
|
|
others. If you mailed copies to friends, please also send each one a copy of
|
|
this response.
|
|
|
|
A major part of the AIR report is concerned with my "secret" association
|
|
with the CIA. Other portions of the paper makes generally disparaging remarks
|
|
about me and several other noted UFO researchers..
|
|
|
|
AIR #1 raises the question of whether or not my association with the CIA
|
|
impacted on my UFO investigations or on the activities of the Fund for UFO
|
|
Research. I can assure that that it did not, as is more fully described in the
|
|
enclosed paper. I feel no need to 'defend' my CIA association, inasmuch as it
|
|
is not based on UFO research, but rather on professional activities related to
|
|
my work for the Navy, which is totally unrelated to UFO research. I have
|
|
written this paper to clarify my association with the CIA and also for another
|
|
reason which is probably of more importance to ufologists who may be recipients
|
|
of further AIG reports.
|
|
|
|
The claim made in the AIR #1 (see the last page) that there are no errors in
|
|
the paper and this is followed by the "promise" (or is it a threat?) of more
|
|
"good" research to follow. In other words the writer of AIR #1 claims for
|
|
himself, and for the Associated Investigators Group, godlike accuracy. This
|
|
sort of accuracy would, indeed be reassuring, if it were true, especially in
|
|
light of the AIR's which are promised on crashed saucers, mind control, CIA
|
|
projects, etc.
|
|
|
|
However, I have discovered numerous errors in the paper. Therefore I feel it
|
|
is my duty to inform the ufo community that this paper is not as accurate as
|
|
one might hope. Furthermore, along with the errors is an overabundance of
|
|
innuendo and false logic. Hence I must caution the readers of this and future
|
|
papers against blind acceptance of what the AIR reports say. I'm afraid that if
|
|
this paper is any example, then we must be prepared for a lot of hot AIR.
|
|
|
|
One more thing. The "ghost writer" of this paper is one Walter Todd Zechel
|
|
who was an important figure in UFO research about 15 years ago. His approach to
|
|
the UFO subject was to do anything which would advance his agenda, even at the
|
|
expense and I mean $$$, of other people. I know a number of people who suffered
|
|
economic loss as a result of WTZ's irresponsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce Maccabee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hot A.I.R
|
|
|
|
or
|
|
|
|
The Mark of Zechel
|
|
|
|
by
|
|
|
|
Bruce Maccabee
|
|
(not anonymous)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Special message: I have plenty of case investigations and analyses to keep me
|
|
busy. I don't need this crap, which forces me to use my precious time
|
|
responding to worthless charges.)
|
|
|
|
"As you well know, there are a lot of people out there with particular axes
|
|
to grind or pet cases or theories to spread around. Some of these people would
|
|
like nothing more than to drag you down into the mud with them. I fervently
|
|
hope that you will continue to operate with the same brilliance and astute
|
|
logic and objectivity I've always admired in you. Please continue to demand
|
|
evidence and proof, and demand as much of them as you would me."
|
|
|
|
(from a letter to Bruce Maccabee by Walter Todd Zechel, June 21, 1986)
|
|
|
|
The UFO community has recently been "rocked" by an unpublished but widely
|
|
circulated paper entitled Associated Investigators Report #1 (abbrev. AIR)
|
|
which reveals, "for the first time anywhere," my [secret] association with the
|
|
CIA. It also levels charges of incompetence and/or outright fraud against
|
|
several other UFO investigators. After reading this report the intelligent
|
|
reader will, I'm sure, be somewhat puzzled. Why was it done? By whom? Was I
|
|
really a CIA mole inside the UFO community? What is the Associated
|
|
Investigators Group? Who wrote the report? Is it as accurate as it claims? Is
|
|
there a "hidden agenda" for this paper? Or is this report really just a lot of
|
|
[hot] AIR?
|
|
|
|
The Associated Investigators Group members are not named, although 14
|
|
pseudonyms are given at the end of the paper. Even the writer of the paper is
|
|
not named. In an "appendix" following the main text there is the following
|
|
statement: "For the most part, this report is based upon interviews or
|
|
discussion with the subjects named herein, and have been stated as accurately,
|
|
candidly and forthrightly as possible. If there are any errors, which is
|
|
unlikely, they are probably the result of misinterpretations by the subjects."
|
|
(Subjects? Is this an experiment?) Clearly the writer assigns godlike accuracy
|
|
to him (her) self and to the AIG. This would be reassuring, [if it were true] .
|
|
The writer then advises readers to "not waste your time and energy attempting
|
|
to impede our investigations by attempting to guess our identities..."
|
|
|
|
CAVEAT EMPTOR! Although gullible readers will probably fall for this crap,
|
|
the astute reader will suspect any investigative writing which proclaims
|
|
perfection! (The astute reader will also note one error immediately: "pellican"
|
|
is not the correct spelling.) The reader should also be wary of any writing by
|
|
people who (a) don't have the intestinal fortitude (read "guts") to identify
|
|
themselves as they accuse others and (b) have the gall to advise the readers
|
|
not to try and identify them. One wonders what these "stealth investigators"
|
|
have to hide. Could a similar paper be done about them?
|
|
|
|
Finally, there is also a promise of more of this "good" research to follow
|
|
and [that is the reason for this paper]. Although there is no need for me to
|
|
defend my association with the CIA, since it is based on continuing
|
|
professional activities related to my job as a Navy physicist, I feel that I
|
|
must alert UFOlogists to the evidence of poor research, use of inference and
|
|
innuendo, errors of fact and just plain mudslinging in this paper so that
|
|
readers will be better able to [judge the level of accuracy of any future hot
|
|
AIR] reports. On the other hand, the promise of future investigative reports
|
|
may also be just hot air.)
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME AND MY RESPONSE
|
|
|
|
The perceptive reader will, of course, immediately realize that, had my
|
|
association with the CIA really been totally secret, the paper would not have
|
|
been written because [no one would have known about it].
|
|
|
|
The writer essentially poses a legitimate question (which other people have
|
|
asked me already), namely, what has been the nature of my association with the
|
|
CIA and has it impacted on my UFO research and my activities in the field.
|
|
Unfortunately, however, the writer, goes on to argue, via innuendo and false
|
|
logic, that my association with the CIA has been poor judgement on my part, at
|
|
best, and, at worst, has negatively impacted the UFO field in two ways which
|
|
are treated separately below. In the following paragraphs I will answer the
|
|
legitimate questions. I will also identify the false logic and innuendo and
|
|
respond to it in a manner that rational people will understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACCUSATION # 1: The writer charges that my support for UFO cases which, in the
|
|
mind of the writer at least, are "obviously" poor cases or frauds (New Zealand,
|
|
Kirtland Landing Case, Gulf Breeze, Guardian) has caused other researchers to
|
|
waste time and money carrying out their own investigatlons. (How horrible!) But
|
|
more germane to the issue which is the subject of this paper, my CIA
|
|
asociation, is the writer's allegation that my support for these cases has been
|
|
"CIA inspired." According to the writer, "This certainly would have served the
|
|
CIA's interest in keeping serious investigation of the UFO phenomena out of the
|
|
public domain." Also, according to the writer my support of these cases is
|
|
evidence for poor judgement on my part, and no one with such poor judgement
|
|
should be a leader in the UFO field (after all...I might lead people astray!)
|
|
(I guess the writer does not think much of the average ufologist's ability to
|
|
discern fact from fiction in UFO investigation.)
|
|
|
|
RESPONSE: The writer implies, without evidence, that a general policy of the
|
|
CIA, the "CIA's interest," is to suppress serious UFO investigation. That
|
|
implication runs counter my impression gained over the last nine years or so
|
|
which is that, at least the part of the CIA with which I have had contact, [has
|
|
no policy or "interest" regarding UFO investigation], although several
|
|
employees have expressed an interest and numerous employees have attended the
|
|
several UFO lectures (the term 'briefings' is too formal) I have presented
|
|
there. The writer alleges that my support for these cases has been "CIA
|
|
inspired." WRONG! The fact is that the my CIA acquaintances have never
|
|
indicated that I should support any particular sighting. In fact, the comments
|
|
they make tend to be skeptical or just plain negative regarding sightings and
|
|
[the reality of UFO phenomena in general]. My support for these cases has
|
|
nothing to do with the CIA and has everything to do with my own investigations
|
|
of them. The astute reader will realize that the opinions of these cases
|
|
offered by the writer are just that...opinions, unsupported by any evidence in
|
|
the hot AIR report. If the writer or any of the AIG group are intelligent
|
|
enough to have good arguments against these cases then they can send me their
|
|
arguments directly or even argue in public if they want to.
|
|
|
|
The writer accuses me of poor judgement in supporting these cases. It's hard
|
|
to defend oneself against accusations of "poor judgement." It is like being
|
|
accused of "poor taste." People will have differing opinions about the same
|
|
subject. Which person is correct? It becomes more a matter of consensus than
|
|
establishable fact. At any rate, I will stand by my past investigations and
|
|
publications. I have rejected many alledged UFO sightings, but the particular
|
|
ones held in disfavor by the hot AIR writer are cases I did not reject for
|
|
reasons which I considered to be very good at the time and I still consider
|
|
them to be good. If others wish to disagree publicly with my conclusions they
|
|
should be willing to state their argument(s) ["nonymously"] as opposed to ["a-
|
|
nonymously."]
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, these charges of poor judgement can be reversed. I
|
|
suspect that the AIG members, should they ever reveal themselves, will be
|
|
charged with poor judgement for having circulated this paper widely in spite of
|
|
the numerous errors, [ad hominem] attacks and argument by illogic and innuendo
|
|
(see below). They will also be charged with "unkind conduct" for [not even
|
|
having the courtesy to send me a copy first, although I am the main target of
|
|
their attacks!] I first learned that the paper existed during the late evening
|
|
of July 24 when Jim Moseley called me to ask me questions about it's
|
|
allegations. Over the next week I heard from other people who had received
|
|
copies. I learned that it had even appeared in England during the weekend of
|
|
July 24. But, oddly enough, of the "subjects" I talked to, [none of them had
|
|
received copies directly from the AIG.] I finally got a copy 6 days after this
|
|
"load" had been dropped on an unsuspecting world from a person who had received
|
|
his copy from the AIG in an envelope with no return address.
|
|
|
|
Why was this report circulated widely before I got a copy? I presume it was
|
|
circulated by the [perpetrators] of this [travesty] in order to spread their
|
|
[lies and innuendo] as far as possible before I (and the others mentioned
|
|
herein) could respond. Furthermore, by not listing a return address or the name
|
|
of a real person to contact there is no "official" person to whom I can send my
|
|
response. I, therefore, must respond to the community in general.
|
|
|
|
ACCUSATION #2: The writer claims that the second negative impact of my
|
|
association with the CIA has been its effect on the policy of the Fund for UFO
|
|
Research. In particular, the writer suggests that my association with the CIA
|
|
affected the decision of the Fund to reject a proposal by Walter Todd Zechel
|
|
(WTZ) to sue the CIA a second time. The writer further charges that my CIA
|
|
association also caused the Fund to support MJ-12 research in spite of
|
|
"knowing" that the MJ-12 papers are fakes.
|
|
|
|
RESPONSE: WRONG and WRONG AGAIN! One fact that the writer has failed to take
|
|
into account ("don't bother me with the facts, this is what I want to say") is
|
|
that I did not "run" the Fund like an autocracy. I had one vote on the
|
|
Executive Committee of five people and each action required at least 3 out of 5
|
|
positive votes. My suggestions were voted down a number of times.
|
|
|
|
In order to support his argument that my association with the CIA impacted
|
|
on the Fund decision to reject MJ-12's proposal the writer has resorted to
|
|
incomplete reporting and biasing of the facts. I present my version of the
|
|
story of this particular incident below. Before beginning, however, I would
|
|
like to point out that most of the information used in the AIG was supplied by
|
|
WTZ. I know this because much of the information which is in the report I
|
|
supplied to him, alone. The report also contains information which he, alone,
|
|
told me (and which I didn't tell others...I kept his confidence, but obviously
|
|
he didn't return the favor!). In fact, the whole paper bears the [Mark of
|
|
Zechel]. This leads me to speculate that WTZ's intent is to use this paper to
|
|
get me off the Executive Committee of the Fund. With me not on the Executive
|
|
Committee he could once again propose to re-sue the CIA without having to worry
|
|
about my presumed interference or alerting of CIA officials (which I didn't do
|
|
the first time and wouldn't have done at any time!). If that is true, then WTZ
|
|
may be surprised to learn that I had, in fact, stepped down in favor of Richard
|
|
Hall at the end of March, 1993, [months before there was any hint of the AIG
|
|
paper]. I am now, after 13 years of continual "duty" with the Fund, Chairman
|
|
Emeritus, with all the privileges that title bestows (none!). (My "golden
|
|
parachute" leaves a lot to be desired.)
|
|
|
|
Now let's get to the core of the matter, the rejection of WTZ's proposal to
|
|
re-sue the CIA and the subsequent funding of Stan Friedman's MJ-12 research,
|
|
the pertinent portion of the hot AIR paper page 8, last paragraph) reads as
|
|
follows (I have labelled the abstractions from the paper with numbers for later
|
|
reference):
|
|
|
|
(1) "It must be pointed out that the Fund rejected a detailed proposal to
|
|
re-sue the CIA under FOIA submitted by Todd Zeche1 a few years ago. Zechel had
|
|
outlined a plan to go after [the 15,000 documents described by Maccabee's
|
|
friend, Kit Green], and had asked for a [paltry $500] to get the effort
|
|
rolling, using a diligent attorney who had volunteered to do the work. The Fund
|
|
quickly rejected Zechel's proposal, but later handed $16000 to Stan Friedman in
|
|
an effort to validate the MJ-12 documents." (my emphasis)
|
|
|
|
(2) "Unfortunately, we are forced now to re-examine the motives of Dr.
|
|
Maccabee. We must ask if his CIA contacts had any input into this (or any)
|
|
decisions regarding proposals. This input may not have been so obvious as one
|
|
would first think. Consider the scenario wherein Maccabee's CIA contacts
|
|
express subtle hints suggesting to Maccabee that there may have been an MJ-12,
|
|
this may have been enough to influence his decision to make such a large grant.
|
|
Conversly, who knows what input the CIA had in Maccabee's rejection of Zechel's
|
|
modest proposal."
|
|
|
|
I would like to answer the last implied question immediately: [the CIA had
|
|
exactly no input to the rejection of WTZ's proposal, nor did it have any input
|
|
to any of the decisions of the Fund For UFO Research. Period!] Of course the
|
|
writer, and WTZ, could have learned this (whether or not they believed it) by
|
|
just asking. But their approach is more consistent with that of paranoid
|
|
delusionals who have fun speculating about being "under constant attack by dark
|
|
forces" (in this case, the CIA) and don't like to ask direct questions and
|
|
receive direct answers because they don't believe the answers. Furthermore, as
|
|
I pointed out above, even it I had attempted to interject a "CIA perspective"
|
|
into the internal deliberations of the Fund - [which I never did], the other
|
|
members could equally well argue from their own perspectives. And when it came
|
|
to the final "showdown", I had only a single vote. But, again, this logic is
|
|
irrelevant according to the writer whose attitude is "don't bother me with
|
|
logic or the facts; I like my own conclusions."
|
|
|
|
Referring, now, to section (1) of the paragraph above, why did the Fund
|
|
reject WTZ's? proposal? The very short answer is that it was at the wrong time
|
|
and by the wrong person. More specifically, there are four basic reasons. Three
|
|
of these are WTZ's own fault, and one was "bad timing." To understand these
|
|
reasons the reader needs to know some history that is not generally available
|
|
(see CLEAR INTENT by Greenwood and Fawcett for more information on the CIA
|
|
lawsuit).
|
|
|
|
The original 1977-1978 CIA lawsuit was prosecuted under the rights granted
|
|
by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIPA...sometimes abbreviated
|
|
FOI). The suit was filed on the behalf of a UFO group, now defunct, called
|
|
Ground Saucer Watch (GSW). The success of the suit came about largely as a
|
|
result of WTZ's own effort in conjunction with New York attorney Peter Gersten
|
|
and with considerable help from Brad Sparks. The lawsult was carried through to
|
|
a surprising (to most of the world) conclusion: in December 1978 the CIA
|
|
released [hundreds] of pages of UFO related material spanning some 30 years
|
|
after claiming for months that it was involved for only a short time in late
|
|
1952 and early 1953 (the time leading up to the Robertson panel fiasco and the
|
|
subsequent panel report which proposed "debunking" as the solution to the UFO
|
|
problem). The fact that the CIA had lots of pages of material was not
|
|
surprising to WTZ and others involved in the suit, however, because they had
|
|
been "led to believe by the CIA's legal staff that the number of documents to
|
|
be accounted for would be in the area of 10,000." (quote taken from the draft
|
|
of "For Your Eyes Only," a paper written in January, 1987, by WTZ). (Years
|
|
earlier, in the January 1979 bulletin of the Citizens Against UFO Secrecy,
|
|
"Just CAUS," WTZ wrote that in September, 1978, "U.S. Attorney William Briggs
|
|
led CAUS officials to believe that the CIA had located in excess of 5,000
|
|
documents. Evidently somehow over the years this number was doubled.)
|
|
Furthermore, according to WTZ in his proposal to the Fund, a "reliable CIA
|
|
source of mine" pointed out that most of the "components" the CIA which were
|
|
searched were the wrong ones. Hence, presumably there could be unreleased
|
|
documents in other components of the agency.
|
|
|
|
The release of a mere 900 pages dismayed WTZ and the others and they began
|
|
planning, [in the spring of 1979], for another lawsuit. (This planning was
|
|
going on when I met a CIA employee who suggested that there could be many more
|
|
pages of material. Although this incident plays a large role in the AIR
|
|
reconstruction of the events, [it played no role] in the Fund decision. My
|
|
contact with the CIA is discussed more fully below.) However, for various
|
|
reasons there was no second suit of the CIA in 1979 and WTZ subsequently
|
|
dropped out of UFO research leaving a trail of unpaid bills and a "few pissed
|
|
off people in my wake" (quote from his proposal).
|
|
|
|
Move ahead, now to December, 1986 (not exactly "a few years ago," as implied
|
|
by the hot AIR paper). The Fund received a proposal from WTZ to re-sue the CIA
|
|
for the presumed thousands of documents that hadn't been released. The
|
|
Executive Committee of the Fund reviewed his proposal and made its decision
|
|
based on the following factors:
|
|
|
|
(a) WTZ did not present a strong case that more pages would be released under a
|
|
new FOI lawsuit. First his "evidence" that there were more documents was
|
|
largely speculation based on hearsay or on information from confidential
|
|
sources about which he would say nothing. In other words, he provided no
|
|
[proof] that there were thousands more pages to be released. (In fact, one goal
|
|
of the suit was a search to find out if there were more more documents.)
|
|
Second, the previous suit had been successful only in retrieving documents of
|
|
Secret classification and below. Both the CIA and later NSA (National Security
|
|
Agency) lawsuits showed that the government could appeal to "national security"
|
|
to withhold documents. There was no reason to believe that the same excuses
|
|
wouldn't be used again to protect the "really good stuff" we wanted. In other
|
|
words, they might locate some more, even many more, documents and simply refuse
|
|
to release them all or in part for national security reasons. Hence the
|
|
Executive Committee did not see much hope that a new lawsuit would produce
|
|
hundreds or thousands, or [any], more documents than we already had.
|
|
|
|
(b) Had this proposal been sent by someone else we might have been more
|
|
favorably disposed toward it. Although proposals to the Fund are evaluated more
|
|
in terms of the capability of an investigator than his personality and personal
|
|
history, in this case we could not overlook WTZ's actions in the past. Although
|
|
he had established himself as a good, persistent investigator of UFO crashes
|
|
and government cover-up, his meteoric rise (1976-77) and fall (late 1979) was
|
|
well known to all of us. As he admitted in his proposal, his complete obsession
|
|
with uncovering the cover-up overpowered his good sense in dealing with other
|
|
investigators. When he left the field, some might say "drummed out," he owed
|
|
money for phone investigations he had carried out at other people's expense. He
|
|
had, to use his phrase in the proposal, "left a few pissed off people in my
|
|
wake" when he vanished from the scene in late 1979, having been "burned out."
|
|
The Executive Committee felt that the Fund would be condemned by many or most
|
|
other researchers if it supported Mr. WTZ in [any] activity.
|
|
|
|
(c) WTZ shot himself in the foot by indicating that big money - that's BIG
|
|
money - was soon to follow. He wrote in his proposal that he was authoring two
|
|
books, one of which would be a hardcover with a "six figure advance...currently
|
|
being negotiated." There would also be a feature film budgeted at another six
|
|
figure number. He was expecting to submit part of the book to a publisher in 3
|
|
months. The Executive Committee members read this and asked, "if there are
|
|
megabucks only a few months away, why does he need us?"
|
|
|
|
(d) The fourth and final "killer" reason was bad timing. Perhaps WTZ, not being
|
|
active in the field, did not know that in 1985 the Fund had volunteered to put
|
|
on the "Fortieth Birthday Party" in the Nation's Capitol. I refer to June 24,
|
|
1987 as the 40th anniversary of Arnold's sighting, and the party was the
|
|
International MUFON Symposium. The Executive Committee had decided to make this
|
|
as international as possible by inviting researchers from all over the world.
|
|
We knew that this would take money...more than we could take in "at the door"
|
|
from the attendees alone. By the fall of 1986 we were activitely searching for
|
|
donations (and beginning to chew our fingernails). We expected to have to raise
|
|
some $15,000 or more in donations [beyond] the expected registration fees. By
|
|
December, 1986, when we received WTZ's proposal, we had not yet achieved our
|
|
goal...[although we had already committed to a number of speakers from
|
|
overseas]. Our collective finger nails were getting shorter.
|
|
|
|
It was in this context that we evaluated WlZ's proposal to re-sue the CIA
|
|
for a "paltry 500 to get the effort rolling," as it says in the AIR. WRONG! Had
|
|
it [only] been $500, and if it had been someone other than WTZ, we just [might]
|
|
have been interested. However, it wasn't just $500. The suit would have
|
|
required an "initial contribution of $500 to cover basic expenses in preparing
|
|
the suit" and "once the suit was ready to file...[an additional contribution of
|
|
about $2,000 as a retainer for the attorney(s)"] (from WTZ's proposal). There
|
|
was no mention of a "diligent attorney who had volunteered to do the legal
|
|
work." Since WTZ's time scale was measured in months, we could see that the
|
|
$500 right up front would be followed soon by another $2,000, for a total of
|
|
$2,500 [that would be needed during the spring/summer of 1987 for his lawsuit].
|
|
Since we were trying to save every penny toward the MUFON Symposium, still 6
|
|
months away, [we weren't about to commit to anything until we had paid for the
|
|
symposium]. In other words, we had our own problems with money. Now reread
|
|
reason (c) above. The Executive Committee members wondered why he needed a
|
|
"paltry" $2,500 from us when, it he waited a few months, he would be [rolling
|
|
in dough]. (Note: evidently his book and movie proposals also fell through.)
|
|
|
|
As you may well imagine, the combination of these reasons was enough to
|
|
cause the Executive Committee vote against the proposal. My "CIA connection"
|
|
(reference section (2) above) had nothing to do with the rejection. In fact, I
|
|
never discussed his proposal [or any other proposal] with my CIA contacts.
|
|
Furthermore, I had no "protective feelings" for the CIA...and I still don't. I
|
|
still think they're holding onto something we want and if someone should
|
|
propose another lawsuit, then have at it!
|
|
|
|
So now you see that the version of this "rejection incident" as reported in
|
|
the AIR, where any errors are "unlikely," is a lot of hot air...just as their
|
|
claim to investigatorial perfection!
|
|
|
|
The Fund's decision not to fund the CIA lawsuit apparently did not sit well
|
|
with WTZ. In the draft of his last issue of "For Your Eyes Only" written in
|
|
January, 1987 he refers to his offer to "launch a new suit against the CIA,
|
|
this time seeking the 15,000 documents that were never scattered throughout the
|
|
CIA's files as it contended, but were instead held in one location, as would be
|
|
expected if UFOs are considered a serious intelligence target. But it appears
|
|
UFOlogists are more concerned with [holding conventions] where everyone can
|
|
propose their latest theories and wallow in the comradery of fellow believers,
|
|
than they are to get down in the trenches and slug it out with those
|
|
responsible for making UFOs a laughing matter and relegating the subject to the
|
|
science fiction section." (my emphasis) As the reader will note, this
|
|
disparaging reference to "holding conventions" is a low blow; the Fund was
|
|
already committed to holding a convention. We didn't have the money to do both,
|
|
and we couldn't arbitrarily cancel the convention to support WTZ's speculative
|
|
proposal.
|
|
|
|
Referring, now, to paragraph (1) above and the research into the MJ-12
|
|
documents, the hot AIR paper says that the Fund "quickly rejected Zechel's
|
|
proposal, but later handed $16,000 to Friedman.." It does not point out that
|
|
Friedman received support for MJ-12 research [2 1/2 years later], under
|
|
conditions that were considerably different from the conditions under which
|
|
WTZ's proposal was rejected. The MJ-12 papers, more precisely referred to as
|
|
the "Eisenhower Briefing Document," (EIB) were released in the late spring of
|
|
1987, just before the 1987 Symposium. Charges and countercharges began flying
|
|
around immediately and continued into 1988. In the summer of 1988 the Fund took
|
|
a poll of contributers to determine what interested them the most. MJ-12 came
|
|
out on top. The Fund then made a public appeal for a $16,000 proposal by Stan
|
|
Friedman to try to prove or disprove the validity of the document. We all knew
|
|
it was a shot in the dark, but only by dilligent searching of old records could
|
|
we hope to learn anything. Everyone who contributed to the special MJ-12 effort
|
|
knew exactly what the money was going for. The Fund did not use general funds
|
|
over which the community had no control.
|
|
|
|
Referring to paragraph (2), above, the writer questions whether or not my
|
|
"CIA contacts had any input to this" and suggests that they may have hinted the
|
|
MJ-12 documents were real, thus influencing me to "make such a large grant." As
|
|
I have stated above, however, the CIA contacts never advised me one way or the
|
|
other and never influenced the Fund decisions one way or another. I'll go
|
|
farther to say that they never hinted that the MJ-12 documents were real. They
|
|
were as puzzled and skeptical as everyone.
|
|
|
|
The writer has alledged that I supported MJ-12 research while knowing that
|
|
the EIB was a fake. WRONG! I [still] don't know whether it is fake or not, or
|
|
whether it might be partially true and partially false. Numerous investigators
|
|
have provided circumstantial evidence on both sides of the question. Many of
|
|
the "conclusive" arguments against the document have been shown to be ill
|
|
conceived. Yet we have yet to find conclusive proof of its reality.
|
|
|
|
MORE HOT AIR
|
|
|
|
Having discussed...and dispensed with...the two major allegations of this
|
|
paper I will now deal with the other allegations. This is done in the Appendix
|
|
on an item-specific basis. My discussion of the various items listed there
|
|
illustrates the errors in this paper. Without trying to analyze each slanted
|
|
word and sentence, and continuing most of my discussion to events, etc., which
|
|
are directly connected to me or which I know about, I have found 19 errors of
|
|
fact, illogic or innuendo in the self-proclaimed "perfect" paper. One person I
|
|
spoke to about this paper pointed out that whenever he gets something like
|
|
this, loaded with [ad hominem] attacks and verging on libel and slander, he
|
|
automatically assumes that maybe 50% is completely false, 50% is basically
|
|
true, and that the true 50% is written in such a way as to make it look bad for
|
|
whomever the paper is about. I guess that person hit the nail on the head this
|
|
time.
|
|
|
|
But what is important now is not this widely circulated paper. The "cat is
|
|
now out of the bag" regarding my "CIA association" and from now on I'll
|
|
probably be be viewed with suspicion by the more paranoid members of the UFO
|
|
community. The important question for the UFO community is how to view the next
|
|
AIR paper which may report on items for which there are no independent checks.
|
|
As this paper shows, the AIG members are not infallible (far from it!). Hence
|
|
readers of any such reports should be prepared to view very skeptically any
|
|
further hot AIR reports.
|
|
|
|
(P.S. Now re-read the abstract from WTZ's letter to me in 1986 at the beginning
|
|
of this paper.)
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX
|
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid having to virtually retype the AIR, I refer to the items of
|
|
interest by listing the page, paragraph and line which contains specific words
|
|
of interest and these words are [italicized]. The reader is invited to use the
|
|
AIR as a reference for the context of the items and to keep track of the number
|
|
of factual errors and inferences presented as fact in order to better assess
|
|
the claim that any such errors are "unlikely." Errors are expressly designated
|
|
as ERROR followed by a # sign.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 1 - pg 1, para. 1, sentence 1: "long standing [secret] relationship
|
|
with the CIA and U.S. Intelligence community." Although my first contact with
|
|
the CIA was UFO related (see below), my contacts since 1984 have been as a
|
|
result of my Navy work. Although I have not publicized this information, WTZ
|
|
knew, as did the members of the Fund and various other members of the UFO
|
|
community. Hence it has not been a real "secret." If it were, this paper
|
|
wouldn't have been written because no one would have known.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 2 - pg.1, para. 1, sent. 1: "[briefing them about various UFO matters
|
|
and Investigators]." I have discussed UFO matters with several employees who
|
|
have expressed an interest in UFOs and have provided them with my opinions on
|
|
various cases and people [just as I would with any other persons interested in
|
|
the subject including other ufologists, newsmedia reporters, etc]. The use of
|
|
the term "briefings" is too formal. Casual discussions or, for groups of
|
|
people, informal lunchtime lectures would be more appropriate. The CIA invites
|
|
people with many different interests to provide entertainment lectures for the
|
|
employees. (I once heard Tom Clancy speak there.)
|
|
|
|
ITEM 3 - pg.1, para. 9, sent. 2: "At the same time and for undisclosed
|
|
reasons, Maccabee briefed the CIA men on the CIA's own UFO files released under
|
|
the Freedom of Information Act." After the 1987 MUFON Symposium in Washington,
|
|
D.C., where the MJ-12 papers were discussed publicly for the first time Ron
|
|
Pandolfi invited me to give a general lecture to employees on UFOs and MJ-12. I
|
|
took the opportunity to inform the CIA men and [women], which included
|
|
employees of all "ranks" including secretaries, about "their own documents"
|
|
because (hold your breath....here is the formerly [undisclosed reason]) I
|
|
wanted them to know what their own employer had been doing. I also wanted to
|
|
see what the response would be. After all, CIA documents would, presumably,
|
|
have some considerable level of credibility so I tried to make the case for
|
|
UFOs based largely on those documents. After that I discussed the MJ-12 papers
|
|
in the context of having built a case for UFO reality using the CIA documents.
|
|
I learned later what the response was: many of the listeners became interested
|
|
in the subject and started snooping around in whatever files they had access
|
|
to. Ron said that I created a lot of "spies" in the agency. However, I have no
|
|
evidence that anyone found anything not already contained ln the FOIPA document
|
|
package.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 4: pg.1, para. 5 sent. 1: "Maccabee first [approached] the CIA in early
|
|
1979..." (after visiting New Zealand as part of my investigatlon of the world
|
|
famous New Zealand Sightings of December, 1978). WRONG! Actually, I never
|
|
[approached] the CIA. The CIA contact was made, [not at my request], by a
|
|
scientist who worked for the MITRE corporation. (See below) ERROR #1
|
|
|
|
ITEM 5: pg.1, para. 5, sent. 2: "...Maccabee, for [unclear reasons] decided
|
|
the film represented some sort of probative evidence of UFOs and [set out to
|
|
bring it to the attention of CIA officials]." WRONG! I [never] "set out to
|
|
bring it to the attention of CIA officials." My reasons for viewing the New
|
|
Zealand sightings as valid evidence may be unclear to the writer, who has
|
|
probably never studied them (and quite possibly [couldn't understand the
|
|
technical arguments even if he did!]), but they are clear to numerous other
|
|
people who have heard the lectures I have given and read the published papers,
|
|
including papers in [Applied Optics], a technical journal. The claim that I
|
|
[set out] to inform the CIA couldn't be [farther] from the truth. Informing the
|
|
CIA had never even crossed my mind. After all, the CIA was the "bad guys" who
|
|
had just two months before, been caught with their pants down when they
|
|
released hundreds of pages of material. ERROR #2
|
|
|
|
ITEM 6: pg. 1, para. 5 sent. 3: "He then [put out feelers through his
|
|
contacts with companies performing tasks for the CIA]..." WRONG! The way this
|
|
is presented the reader might assume that the writer (or WTZ) has some
|
|
evidence, as, for example, by checking with companies that perform tasks for
|
|
the CIA. However, this is a (one of many!) false impression created by the
|
|
writer. I never contacted any companies. What I did was tell Jack Acuff,
|
|
Director of NICAP at the time, that I would like to speak to experts in the
|
|
field of radar. He, in turn, put me in contact with a scientist, Dr. Gordon
|
|
MacDonald, at the MITRE corporation. I was invited to discuss the NZ sightings
|
|
with him and several other scientists at MITRE in McLean, Va. and I did (and
|
|
they generally agreed with my conclusions). Then, a week or so later, I learned
|
|
that MacDonald had contacted a man at the CIA who contacted me and offered to
|
|
provide technical consultation if I would provide a [briefing] to some CIA
|
|
employees. At first I was leery of doing anything with the CIA, but I knew they
|
|
had radar experts, so I stipulated that if they would give me some feedback I'd
|
|
tell them what I know. So I briefed them and I received some helpful comments.
|
|
There were some minor criticisms but no strong disagreements with my analysis.
|
|
(I had concluded, by the way, that in certain instances there were correlated
|
|
radar-visual observations of unidentified objects.) ERROR #3.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 7: pg. 1 para. 7 and pages 2 and 3. This presents the hot AIR version
|
|
of my interaction with a CIA employee and his [supposed] statement that there
|
|
were "15,000 UFO-related documents." The actual history is as follows:
|
|
|
|
After I discussed the NZ case one employee, Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green
|
|
(KG), invited me to visit the CIA again a week or so later to have a general
|
|
UFO discussion with him and a couple of other employees. It was at this time,
|
|
during a discussion of the CIA lawsuit, that he made a general comment that
|
|
there [could] be more pages because he knew, from the compartmented
|
|
organization of the agency, that other parts of the agency could have
|
|
information of which he would not be aware, even though he thought he was the
|
|
"custodian" of the UFO files. In other words, [he knew that he would be unaware
|
|
of any UFO files that might be possessed by "custodians" in other components of
|
|
the Agency]. This all happened in late March and early April, 1979. I knew that
|
|
WTZ and Peter Gersten were interested in going after more agency documents, so,
|
|
about a month later I revealed my "secret" meeting and KG's comment that there
|
|
might be more, perhaps 15,000 more, pages. This I did to support his WTZ's
|
|
effort. I don't remember exactly what I said, but, since WTZ recorded my
|
|
conversation (without telling me) he can perhaps supply me with a transcript.
|
|
Whatever I said, it is clear that WTZ interpreted it as meaning that KG had
|
|
said there [were] 15,000 UFO-related documents. Almost immediately WTZ wanted
|
|
to know if I would reveal the contact's name, which I didn't. Then he wanted me
|
|
to find out if the contact would be willing to testify to the existence of 15,
|
|
000 more pages. I called KG and he made it clear that he didn't [know] that
|
|
there were thousands more pages. He could only testify to what had been in his
|
|
own file, which he had given to the FOIPA coordinator, a thousand pages or so.
|
|
All else was speculation. When I told this to WTZ and Gersten they appeared to
|
|
get angry and wanted to sue [me] for covering up information. I managed to
|
|
convince Gersten that I didn't know anything and that I couldn't force KG to
|
|
make any statements that he didn't want to make. That ended the situation.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 8: Pg. 2, para. 7: "It was clear from Maccabee's statements to Zechel
|
|
that Maccabee intended to cooperate with the CIA on a continuing basis..."
|
|
WRONG! I didn't reveal KG's name because I felt it was not my perogative. If
|
|
WTZ and Gersten wanted to sue the hell out of the CIA that was their business.
|
|
I didn't want to get KG in trouble if there were a lawsuit simply because he
|
|
had inadvertently leaked information, [if] it was valid information. I didn't
|
|
expect to continue my contact with the CIA and had no further contacts until
|
|
1984 (see below). ERROR #4
|
|
|
|
ITEM 9: Pg. 3, para. 2, sent. 2,3 : "At one point Zechel asked him directly,
|
|
if he was working for the CIA. [You might say that, Maccabee replied]." I would
|
|
like to state that I have never been employed by the CIA nor paid by the CIA.
|
|
The hot AIR paper should have pointed out that the context of this statement
|
|
was a casual conversation with WTZ. I pointed out that by talking with Ron
|
|
Pandolfi or other employees I was providing them with information, and [in that
|
|
context] I was "working for" the CIA. I was saving the employees some effort to
|
|
learn what they could by themselves by other means. However, I didn't tell them
|
|
everything. In other words, I have withheld information from Ron and others. I
|
|
never mentioned WTZ's proposal to re-sue the agency, for example.
|
|
|
|
Regarding my employment, I might add that, although I am a civilian employee
|
|
of the Navy, I have never been in Naval Intelligence or any intelligence
|
|
agency. Nor have I been advised in any way related to UFO research activities
|
|
by any agency of the government except that the laboratory where I work has
|
|
said "keep our name out of it."
|
|
|
|
ITEM 10: pg. 3, para. 2, sent. 4 : "In [April 1990], however, Maccabee began
|
|
to back-pedal on what he'd been told by the UFO files custodian in 1979.....In
|
|
this version the CIA man had merely been speculating about the totality of the
|
|
CIA's collection, judging by the one or two thousand he had control over."
|
|
WRONG! Evidently WTZ has "conveniently" (because it makes a better story?)
|
|
forgotten that the "back pedalling" had all occurred in [May, 1979] . For the
|
|
reader who doesn't know who is telling the truth I ask whether or not you think
|
|
that WTZ would have failed to pursue this point (i.e., are there 15,000
|
|
documents or aren't there?) in the spring of 1979 when the subject was
|
|
hot...[he needed to know whether or not there were thousands more pages for the
|
|
next lawsuit]. I submit that WTZ did the logical thing in 1979 and asked me at
|
|
that time to clarify the situation: was my contact aware, or wasn't he aware,
|
|
of "15,000" pages? The writer's indication that this "back-pedaling" didn't
|
|
take place until 1990 is part of the poor investigation evident in this paper.
|
|
ERROR #5
|
|
|
|
The AIR paper continues in the next several paragraphs to build an argument
|
|
which the writer portrays as logical (the "custodian" should know how many
|
|
documents there are). However, the truth or falsity of the claim that there are
|
|
thousands more pages of UFO documents cannot be determined from the information
|
|
I was given. The simple fact is that, because of the compartmented nature of
|
|
the CIA (and other intelligence agencies), [it may be that no one who knows how
|
|
many pages there are].
|
|
|
|
ITEM 11: pg. 3, para. 7, sent. 3: "Green was awarded the CIA's National
|
|
Intelligence Medal for his work on a "classified project" from 1979 to 1983
|
|
[precisely the years in which Maccabee was meeting with him at CIA
|
|
headquarters]." WRONG! (Way to go, Kit!) It appears that the writer/WTZ is
|
|
trying to imply that the "classified project" was related to UFO research and
|
|
my contacts. I don't know what the "classified project" was, but I do know it
|
|
had nothing to do with my contacts from 1979 to 1983 because [there weren't
|
|
any]. After that last meeting with KG in the spring of 1979 I didn't see him
|
|
again and had no contact with the agency until June, 1984 when I was contacted
|
|
by Dr. Ronald Pandolfi regarding my Navy work. He had been tracking
|
|
developments by the "other side" in that field of research and wanted to know
|
|
what the US state of the art was. ERROR #6
|
|
|
|
During my first meeting with Ron we discussed my Navy research. I didn't
|
|
mention my previous visit to the Agency 5 years before, nor did I mention
|
|
anything about UFOs because I didn't want him to think I was "nuts." However, I
|
|
subsequently learned that he discussed my visit with someone who did remember,
|
|
because soon afterward I got a phone call in which he brought up my UFO
|
|
interest. I didn't quite know how to take this and approached the situation
|
|
with some caution. So, over the next few years, when we met to discuss LIS
|
|
research and projects we would occasionally also discuss UFO cases I was
|
|
working on and ufology in general. There were several people who were mildly
|
|
interested in the subject, but none, to my knowledge, was actively involved in
|
|
research. In the summer 1987 after the release of the MJ-12 papers and the
|
|
MUFON International Symposium in Washington, DC, where the MJ-12 papers were
|
|
discussed publicly for the first time Ron asked if I would be willing to give a
|
|
lunchtime talk at the CIA. That sounded amusing, so I said yes. My talk to
|
|
all-comers, secretaries, messenger boys, researchers and spies (?), centered
|
|
around the papers which the CIA had itself released, and, of course, the
|
|
already controversial MJ-12 papers. Although I gained no new information, Ron
|
|
said that I created a lot of "spies" in the Agency, as everyone tried to find
|
|
documents on their own. (Clearly most of the employees were not familiar with
|
|
the UFO phenomenon in general and the CIA documents in particular.)
|
|
Subsequently I spoke there in 1990 about the Gulf Breeze sightings and most
|
|
recently about a magnetic case that occurred in Gulf Breeze last September
|
|
(1992). In each case I presented lectures that I had already given to other
|
|
audiences. The most recent lecture was a repeat of my presentation of the
|
|
magnetic case at the April, 1993, meeting of the American Physical Society in
|
|
Washington, DC.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 12: pg. 4, para. 3., last sentence: "[..Bill Moore's best known
|
|
creation--the MJ-12 hoax]." WRONG! It is my belief, having known Bill and
|
|
having known about his investigative approach for more than 13 years, that the
|
|
suggestion that Bill faked the MJ-12 papers (EIB) is [extremely hot air]. WTZ
|
|
has his own reasons for claiming that Moore faked the document. Part of WTZ's
|
|
"hidden agenda" (hinted at in the paper) is to discredit the Roswell/Corona
|
|
crash and the MJ-12 papers in order to build up his own baby, the Dec. (5,6,7 -
|
|
pick a date), 1950 Texas-Mexico border crash (see pg. 7, para. 1,2, of the AIR
|
|
report). [There is no evidence that Bill Moore created the MJ-l2 documents. If
|
|
they are a hoax, it is not his fault]. ERROR #7
|
|
|
|
NOTE: THE ASSERTION THAT MOORE CREATED THE EIB/MJ-12 PAPERS LEADS TO NUMEROUS
|
|
OTHER ERRORS IN THE PAGES FOLLOWING PG. 4. I HAVE NOT ENUMERATED THEM.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 13: last sentence at the bottom of page 4: "There are probably
|
|
thousands of people all over the country suffering from the same sort of
|
|
[paranoid delusions] as Paul Bennewitz." YES! And the writer of this paper
|
|
seems to be one of them. Presumably the AIG members are others.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 14: pg. 5, para. 3, sent. 4: "In fact, Moore told Todd Zechel in early
|
|
1980 that "I'll bet you've heard that you can't [make money off UFOs?] Well, I
|
|
proved that wrong!" For WTZ to accuse BM of trying to make some money off UFOs
|
|
is like the pot calling the kettle black. WTZ has established a track record of
|
|
grand schemes to make movies and books that would lead to BIG BUX.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 15: pg. 6, para. 8, sent. 2: "[Quickly] Moore set about circulating
|
|
this material.." WRONG! The EIB was received in late December, 1984. Bill and
|
|
Jamie told only a couple of people about the EIB over the next couple of years
|
|
and did not generally release it until after it was published by Timothy Good
|
|
in England in the late spring of 1987, [three and a half years later]. ERROR #8
|
|
|
|
ITEM 16: pg. 8, para 1, sent. 1: "...[thanks' to Maccabee's influence] ..."
|
|
WRONG! Here the writer implies that I had some influence on how Whitley
|
|
Streiber in MAJESTIC and how Howard Blum in [OUT THERE] portrayed Moore and
|
|
Doty. WHAT AMAZING GARBAGE. Sure I knew Whitley, but I had no involvement with
|
|
his book. He met Moore on his own and formed his own opinion, I presume. As for
|
|
Blum, I never had a discussion or contact with him before his book came out [or
|
|
since]. Hence I could not have influenced him. ERROR #9
|
|
|
|
ITEM 17: Pg. 8, para. 5, sent. 2,3: "How much involvement did he have in
|
|
spreading the MJ-12 hoax? How much influence did Ron Pandolfi have over his
|
|
conduct during this whole affair?" Answer 1: I supported, and continue to
|
|
support, legitimate investigation into the EIB/MJ-12 papers which are not yet
|
|
proven to be a hoax. Answer 2: NONE.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 18: pg. 8, para. 6, sent. 2: (referring to my paper "UFO Landings near
|
|
Kirtland AFB or Welcome to the Cosmic Watergate") The report was [co-authored
|
|
by Bill Moore]. WRONG! I wrote the whole report based on my investigation.
|
|
Afterward I sent it to Bill and asked him to write an addendum outlining what
|
|
he knew. He did so. The title page of the report, which anyone can obtain from
|
|
the Fund for UFO Research, reads "(the above title) by Bruce Maccabee with
|
|
comments by Bill Moore." Bill's input to the paper is confined to the "notes"
|
|
on pages 29 and 30 of the 30 page report. I made no changes in my text as a
|
|
result of Bill's notes. This is hardly what one could call "co-authored." ERROR
|
|
#10.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 19: pg. 8, para. 6., sent. 4: "A careful examination of the
|
|
circumstances surrounding the documents ([and Maccabee's own report]) clearly
|
|
shows that the document is a fraud created by Doty." WRONG! There is no
|
|
evidence that it is a fraud. Furthermore, there is testimony by people
|
|
mentioned in the report which indicates that it actually happened. In
|
|
particular, Maj. Ernest Edwards confirmed the details about the sightings of
|
|
the Manzano Guards, but, unfortunately, too late for me to include this in my
|
|
paper. If the writer has any conclusive evidence that it is a fraud, as opposed
|
|
to [innuendo and "wishful thinking"] (he hopes it is a fraud because it makes
|
|
his story better), then I would like to see it. ERROR #11
|
|
|
|
ITEM 20: pg. 8, para. 6, sent. 7: "Maccabee now privately admits that the
|
|
whole MJ-12 mess is [probably a hoax]. WRONG! I would agree that it is,
|
|
[possibly] a hoax (NOT BY BILL MOORE), but I have seen no evidence that makes
|
|
me think that the EIB itself is probably a hoax. [If it is a hoax, then it is
|
|
extremely sophisticated, utilizing historical details that were not previously
|
|
known. It certainly isn't "crude," as has been suggested by some considerably
|
|
less-than-brilliant skeptics]. ERROR #12
|
|
|
|
ITEM 21: pg. 8, para. 6, sent. 2 : "When did Maccabee know the MJ-12
|
|
material was fraudulent, was it before he provided Stan Friedman with $16,000
|
|
of Fund money?" WRONG! This sentence is evidence of the argument by innuendo
|
|
and interence with some slanting of the data included. I didn't know that the
|
|
document was fraudulent before Friedman's investigation and [I still don't].
|
|
[Final judgement awaits evidence...none of which is presented in the hot AIR
|
|
paper].
|
|
|
|
ITEM 22: pg. 8, para. 7, sent. 2: "...and had asked for a [paltry] $500 to
|
|
get the effort rolling, using a diligent attorney who [volunteered to do the
|
|
legal work]." WRONG! Here is WTZ's listing of "Costs to the Fund" : "I seek an
|
|
initial contribution of $500, which would cover my basic expenses in preparing
|
|
the suit for filing. Once the suit was ready to file, I would need an
|
|
additional contribution of about $2,000 as a retainer for the attorney(s)."
|
|
ERROR #13
|
|
|
|
The subject matter of this paragraph is more fully discussed in the main text
|
|
of this paper.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 23: pg. 9, para. 7, ". ..all this should be viewed...in light of Dr.
|
|
Maccabee's (hence FUFOR's) [concurrent relationship with the CIA]. WRONG! More
|
|
ultimate claptrap. The allegations in this paper should not be viewed in the
|
|
light of my CIA association. [The Fund has never had a "relationship" with the
|
|
CIA]. Furthermore, as I pointed out in the main text of this paper, my CIA
|
|
acquaintances had no impact on my UFO activities with respect to MJ-12 or any
|
|
other aspect of government cover-up investigation. ERROR #14
|
|
|
|
ITEM 24: pg. 9, para 8., sent. 3: (regarding my analysis and support of the
|
|
Gulf Breeze Sightings) "...most serious researchers have come to the conclusion
|
|
that indeed the case is a hoax." Is that so? Does the writer, or WTZ have any
|
|
evidence of this? Did they take a poll? Where is it published? Just how many
|
|
serious researchers, as opposed to those who merely [read] papers about the
|
|
case, are there? How do they explain all the other sightings? I suggest that if
|
|
the AIG really knew how to investigate sightings, as opposed to writing
|
|
scurrilous "expose" papers, they ought to look more carefully into Gulf Breeze
|
|
(and New Zealand and Guardian).
|
|
|
|
ITEM 25: pg. 10, top para. sent. 2: "Or is his technical ability to analyze
|
|
photographic evidence really that poor?" More unmitigated garbage. Would the
|
|
writer like to challenge me to an analysis duel, perhaps? My analysis of the
|
|
Gulf Breeze photos has recently been reviewed and expanded by Jeff Sainio.
|
|
Perhaps the writer would like to smear him, too.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 26: pg. 10, top para. sent. 3: "...one could [speculate] that Dr.
|
|
Maccabee's public support for the case might have been [encouraged by his
|
|
intelligence contacts]." WRONG! One could also speculate that the writer is a
|
|
moron or a childmolester or a sexual deviate (pick one...or several).
|
|
Speculation is easy. Why didn't the writer simply ask me, "Did your
|
|
intelligence contacts "encourage" you to support the Gulf Breeze sightings?" I
|
|
would have answered...[NO]. Although they didn't try to advise me one way or
|
|
another, their comments were more to the opposite, since they were skeptical of
|
|
the sightings. ERROR #15
|
|
|
|
Oddly enough, the writer provides support for my claim in the previous
|
|
sentence that my CIA contacts [didn't] encourage me to support the Gulf Breeze
|
|
Sightings by stating that Pandolfi told "others" that he considers Ed Walters
|
|
to be a "total fraud." Not only has he told others, he also said that to me.
|
|
However, he pointed out that he has no evidence that Ed is a fraud.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 27: pg, 10, para. 7, sent. 2, 3: (Referring to the Guardian
|
|
investigation by Maccabee and Oechsler) "[It is not known] whether any Fund for
|
|
UFO Research monies were expended in this investigation...again, [it is
|
|
unknown] whether Fund for UFO Research monies have been expended." In keeping
|
|
with the "slant" or bias throughout the paper, the writer publishes a simple
|
|
question [for its value as innuendo or suggestion of wrongdoing]....a simple
|
|
question which could have been answered before the publication by a simple
|
|
phone call to the Chairman, Richard Hall, or to any of the other members of the
|
|
Executive Board. The answer is NO (a thousand times, no).
|
|
|
|
ITEM 28: pg. 11, para. 2, last sentence: (referring to the Fund's non-
|
|
support of the demonstration by Operation Right to Know) "But given Dr.
|
|
Maccabee's relationship with the CIA, the actual reasons for this opposition
|
|
are in question." As I have pointed out before, my "relationship with the CIA"
|
|
had no effect on the policy and decisions of the Fund for UFO Research.
|
|
|
|
ITEM 29: pg. 12, para. 3 In this paragraph it is suggested that my CIA
|
|
connection had something to do with the decision to "terminate" Larry Bryant's
|
|
membership in the Executive Committee. WRONG! The decision was based on
|
|
internal Executive Committee deliberations and my association with the CIA had
|
|
nothing to do with it. [In fact, I was not in favor of terminating his
|
|
membership]. ERROR #16
|
|
|
|
ITEM 30: pg. 12, para. 3: "For some reason Bryant's request [angered the
|
|
CIA].." WRONG! Angered the CIA? What the hell would the CIA care about a
|
|
request for FBIS reports [which are not classified] (as the AIR paper correctly
|
|
reports)? I have no information that Bryant's request "angered the CIA." ERROR
|
|
#17
|
|
|
|
ITEM 31: pg. 12, para. 3: "...Maccabee was scolded by Pandolfi" because of
|
|
Bryant's FOI request. WRONG! He never mentioned it to me. ERROR #18
|
|
|
|
ITEM 32: pg, 12, para. 3: "Bryant's action '[could jeopardize the Fund's
|
|
relationship wlth the CIA].'" WRONG! More misinformation. [There never was a
|
|
"Fund relationship wlth the CIA"], so Bryant's action could not jeopardize it.
|
|
ERROR #19
|
|
|
|
ITEM 33: pg. 12, para. 5. This paragraph, entitled "Maccabee Disinforms
|
|
FUFOR" is more complete poppycock. First of all, "disinformation" includes
|
|
falsehood. Providing disinformation is different from providing incomplete
|
|
information. It is true that I never told the Fund members everything about my
|
|
CIA contacts. After all, most of my contacts were professionally related and
|
|
they had no need to know.
|
|
|
|
I have ignored numerous other innuendoes and "truth-stretchers" because I
|
|
don't want to end up writing a paper that is several times longer than the AIR
|
|
itself. I think it is clear that the writers are not infallible and that if
|
|
future papers are like this one, [LET THE READER BEWARE]!
|
|
|
|
|
|
** End **
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |