UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 19

An interview with ACC's President

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 14:32:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:31:40 -0400
Subject: An interview with ACC's President

For what it's worth, I thought that some might find this of interest and
may have missed it.


 --------------------------------------------------------------------
                             SIGHTINGS
 --------------------------------------------------------------------



                       EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW:
              Jeff Rense Talks With American Computer
                 President Jack Shulman About The
                   Roswell/Bell Labs Controversy
                         Courtesy CNI News


  [Since mid-August, a controversy has raged on the internet
  concerning highly provocative information posted on the web
  site of American Computer Company (see CNI News of September
  16, 1997; and visit ACC's web site:
  http://www.american-computer.com). In brief, ACC has suggested
  that the historic invention of the transistor at Bell
  Laboratories in December, 1947 might have been aided by covert
  transfer of technology from an alien spacecraft recovered near
  Roswell, New Mexico. This suggestion directly parallels
  similar claims made by Lt. Col. Philip Corso in his recent
  book, "The Day After Roswell." However, ACC personnel state
  they had no knowledge of Corso or his book, but relied instead
  on information provided by a "consultant" who remains
  nameless.

  American Computer's president and chief technical officer is
  Jack Shulman. In recent weeks, Shulman himself has come under
  scrutiny by UFO researchers, as have several other people who
  have presumed to speak in a seemingly authoritative way on
  behalf of American Computer. Chief among these "others" are
  one Ed Wang and one Bob Wolf. Pronouncements attributed to
  these two persons have raised suspicions that Shulman himself
  may have been writing under one or several pseudonyms.

  CNI News, working in cooperation with radio host Jeff Rense of
  the popular syndicated program "Sightings on the Radio," [see
  Jeff's web site at http://www.sightings.com], is seeking to
  verify or dispel the various rumors swirling around ACC and
  the person of Jack Shulman, so that public attention can be
  refocused to the significant issues raised on the American
  Computer web site. This special supplement to the October 1
  edition of CNI News is directed to that goal.

  The following is an edited transcript of a telephone interview
  between Jeff Rense and Jack Shulman which took place on
  September 29. Jeff Rense and CNI News editor Michael Lindemann
  consulted together on the questions to be asked prior to the
  call.

  CNI News recognizes that the statements made by Shulman in
  this interview by no means satisfy all the questions we would
  like to have answered. However, we hope that this information
  represents a contribution to the ongoing investigation of this
  unusual case.

  Thanks to Jeff Rense for sharing the complete contents of this
  interview with CNI News.]


  JEFF RENSE: It's September 29, and we're talking with American
  Computer Company president Jack Shulman. To begin with, are
  you, Jack Shulman, writing under the pseudonym "Ed Wang"?

  JACK SHULMAN: No

  RENSE: Have you ever met Ed Wang?

  SHULMAN: No.

  RENSE: Have you ever talked to anyone calling himself Ed Wang?

  SHULMAN:: Yes, he's called here a couple of times. At one time
  he had asked us if he could use an account at one of the
  computer science associations nearby to access the internet
  for the purpose of investigative reporting. That predated this
  whole controversy. We did in fact give him an account to use,
  back about eleven months ago. I don't remember what he was
  investigating at that time. Then somebody raised his name, in
  about the early part of August, asking us if we could verify
  something that he had paraphrased from one of the stories on
  our web site. Since he had paraphrased, and it was all quoted
  and everything, it would have been just as easy for that party
  to just look at our web page. So we said, "If you'll look at
  our web page, you'll see that whatever he's paraphrased here
  does appear to resemble exactly the words that are on the web
  page." To my knowledge, the only other contact we've had with
  Ed Wang is an occasional call from him, much as you've called
  me today, and others such as Stig Agermose, who have contacted
  us to ask questions.

  RENSE: Who is Bob Wolf? Does he mean anything to American
  Computer?

  SHULMAN: Again, he's one of the people, like Jared Anderson,
  Ed Wang, Linda Moulton Howe, yourself and others, who've
  written us. There have been dozens of people who have either
  written us or called us for information. I have spoken to Bob
  Wolf at length by phone. I have not personally met the guy. He
  does appear to be a very nice fellow. He's given me some very
  interesting information. I don't know if I'd take all of it
  without the proverbial grain of salt, because he has told me
  some things that led me to believe there are parts of his
  background that he doesn't want to disclose to me. Apparently
  he worked for the U.S. Navy as a Seal, but I can't verify
  that. I can't call the Seals organization and ask if this guy
  was a Seal. They won't respond to that.

  RENSE: What is your purpose in exposing the Roswell/Bell Labs
  allegations on the ACC web site, thereby attaching your
  credibility, for better or worse, not only to Roswell, but to
  claims concerning Bell Labs' access to alien technology --
  claims which either must be substantiated, or which could make
  you look like a nut, or a disinformer?

  SHULMAN: I don't think there was any purpose -- either to look
  like nut, a disinformer, a credible source or anything --
  taken into consideration at first. We had a consultant come to
  me and tell me this story. At first, I was quite skeptical
  about it. I knew a lot of the facts, because they are pretty
  much matters of record, but had always thought that the reason
  there was a cloud of -- shall we say -- controversy about the
  exact origins of William Shockley's transistor was that it
  stemmed perhaps from a prehistory that AT&T didn't care to
  disclose. I didn't have any idea, up until the time that the
  consultant came to me and raised these issues, that it might
  in fact be related to the Roswell incident. I originally
  thought [the origin] was something like German rocket
  scientists....

  RENSE: How did this consultant come to you?

  SHULMAN: I had known the consultant years ago. We had met each
  other in the hinterlands of AT&T. I've worked on and off in
  AT&T contracts over the course of a couple of decades. And
  about a year ago, in my capacity as the chairperson of the
  American Computer Science Foundation, I was asked to review
  materials that pertained to an ongoing investigation of
  telephone company practices that were pertinent to the success
  of the computer industry, during the course of which I
  happened to come across some fairly strong allegations that
  were made by the consultant in the dominion of that specific
  investigation. I was not at that time informed of the
  possibility of an alien technology transfer. It was not until
  he came to me personally and suggested it that I said to him,
  "Well, you're going to have to show me some bonafide evidence
  before I even consider this." About six months later he came
  back to me with what appeared to me to be... some evidence
  that might suggest in fact that the transistor came from some
  kind of a project involving investigation into an alien
  technology of some kind.

  RENSE: Can you elaborate on that evidence at all?

  SHULMAN: I can tell you that I have seen what appears to be
  some notes from someone. However, I cannot verify their
  authenticity, so I'd really not like to describe them in any
  detail. Frankly, Jeff, I grow concerned about leading people
  in the wrong direction. They did give me the appearance of a
  lab notebook, of a lab-keeper's notebook. In fact, they did
  appear to describe or have an actual memorandum referring to a
  disinformation campaign in late 1947 at AT&T. But again, they
  could have been a complete forgery. They could have been
  anything. They might have been legitimate too. At that
  particular juncture, I said to him, "OK, this now looks like
  it's fairly conceivable it might have happened, if in fact
  this is bonafide." So he suggested to me, Why don't we at the
  American Computer Science Foundation post some kind of white
  paper on the subject? I said we really can't do that. He asked
  me why, and I said to him that it was because American
  Computer Science Foundation carries the weight of its
  membership companies, etc., all of which might lend a greater
  weight, in essence underwriting the credibility of this story
  in a way that I would not intend it to. I would prefer that
  the information somehow stand on its own. Well, he pestered me
  for a couple of months. We were talking over coffee, reviewing
  the whole thing, and he suggested, "Why don't you put it on
  your American Computer Company web site?" I said I can't do
  that, because it might [reflect badly on ACC]. So he said --
  and I'll be blunt with you here -- "Why don't you make it look
  humorous? That way, you have a plausibly deniable excuse." I
  said, "It IS humorous, in a way, because if you look at it,
  you have a company -- if in fact they did obtain technology
  from a technology transfer source -- that's been running
  around for fifty years trying to hide that fact." That's
  funny. Why would anybody do that? It struck me at that
  particular moment that AT&T would have been better off
  admitting it. So I said, "OK, why don't we make it appear in
  its proper light -- as outrageous and/or funny -- and put it
  on the ACC web site and see if we get any reaction at all from
  anybody who reads it. Perhaps if it strikes a chord, somebody
  will contact us and tell us whether this is ridiculous or
  not." Initially, we did not expect anyone from your
  investigative arena to even notice the story. At least I
  didn't. The consultant may have, but I did not. I initially
  thought that people would see it in passing and would say,
  hmm, how interesting, how humorous, or whatever.

  RENSE: You had no idea of the potential scope of this?

  SHULMAN: Well, interestingly, exactly what I thought might
  happen did happen -- that is, it struck a chord with somebody
  and they wrote us. Sure enough, the first week someone wrote
  us and said, "Yes, my father worked for AT&T/Bell Labs in
  1947, and in the early '60s took me to see a UFO." I was
  flabbergasted, absolutely floored. You could have knocked me
  over with a feather at that moment. Not because I was
  skeptical, but in the context of how ridiculous it makes AT&T
  look, I found it to be humorous. What, are they crazy? Why
  didn't they come out with it in 1947? The world would have
  been in their debt. AT&T would have been the greatest company
  that ever lived. Why would they hide it?

  It was then that the full import of the suggestion of
  profiteering began to occur to me. If in fact this were true,
  the profiteering aspect was something that none of us
  considered. If people were ready to make billions and billions
  of dollars for 200 years on this kind of technology, and it
  came from an "alien source," they would keep it a secret --
  because if it came from outside of AT&T, it wouldn't belong to
  AT&T. It hadn't even dawned on us, because we were looking at
  it from the perspective of how amazing the story is, how
  earthshaking, and how silly it would be to keep it a secret --
  until we began to realize who was in the business of profiting
  from this kind of technology.

  RENSE: Do you have any relationship with Bell Labs now, Jack?

  SHULMAN: Not really. They call us every once in a while to
  look at buying equipment, but I am no longer personally doing
  any consulting for Bell Labs.

  RENSE: Does the consultant?

  SHULMAN: Occasionally. He or she does communications-related
  consulting in the defense industries, and very specifically
  his or her identity is being withheld for security reasons.

  RENSE: Has the consultant expressed to you any surprise at the
  amount of internet interest in this story?

  SHULMAN: He and several of our public relations consultant
  clients said that, frankly, it will do quite well as a story
  on the internet because it will serve to brighten up the
  interest of some very frustrated people. This information will
  give people in your investigative field some leverage in
  dealing with the whole subject. Even if the entire story might
  not be 100 percent accurate for whatever reason, the facts
  described in our story are materially largely true. For
  instance -- and it's been interesting to see how many people
  have reacted adversely to this suggestion -- if you take a
  look at the part about the Nike-Ajax missile bases, and the
  anti-aircraft guns that preceded them, in and around AT&T down
  in Red Bank, outside of Crawford's Corners, up in Murray Hill
  and over in Holmdel, it's almost shocking to discover that,
  while New York City and New Jersey sat undefended, AT&T had
  both anti-aircraft and then anti-missile batteries constructed
  around them in the 1940s and 1950s. This is painfully
  humorous. It actually hurts to consider that AT&T and Bell
  Labs are more important than the citizens of our country. So
  I'm thinking, wow, there must be more than just the labs
  there. Because I know something about the research community,
  and I don't know that there is anything at AT&T from 1947 to
  1997 that was irreplaceable. Whereas, when I think of places
  like the Applied Physics Laboratory, Cold Springs Harbor,
  Lawrence Livermore -- there are projects going on there that
  are not reproducible, and I'm not sure they all have Nike-Ajax
  missile bases around them.

  RENSE: Concerning the allegations about Bell Labs, then, would
  you say that you are a conduit for someone else's information?

  SHULMAN: Yes, we are providing a forum. To date, only Motorola
  from the AT&T arena has tried to dispute it. AT&T appears to
  be remaining mute on the subject. And Lucent has remained
  mute, although I must tell you that our relationship with
  Lucent on the technical support side -- because we support
  some of Lucent's products on the AT&T phone systems -- has
  been less than warm since August 15. We've actually been hung
  up on a few times.

  RENSE: But have you had anyone call up and tell you, Jack,
  you've really stepped across the boundary here?

  SHULMAN: No, not thus far. We've gotten a couple of nasty
  letters from people who didn't provide a return email address.
  But we're just trying to provide a forum for people to hear
  these facts and either disprove them or prove them. There's
  nothing worse, in my view, than something like this that's
  left open to conjecture indefinitely, because it does nothing
  but hurt the people who try to consider it, and I think it
  hurts the country to some degree. I think it weakens our
  country. The fact that people will continuously arrive at the
  conclusion, for instance, that either the DoD, or the
  president, or someone like that is not disclosing facts to
  them that they ought to disclose, leads to the kind of
  thinking that undermines our democratic system. It tends to
  erode our confidence in government, and I think our confidence
  in government really needs to be reinforced.

  RENSE: Is American Computer consciously part of a larger
  coordinated campaign of public disclosure or education aimed
  at revealing things about the alleged alien presence on earth?

  SHULMAN: No. Not unless you call ACC's own campaign that
  broader one. Nobody came to us other than this consultant.

  RENSE: So would you say that Jack Shulman, as a matter of
  conscience and patriotism, independently decided to put this
  on his web site?

  SHULMAN: Conscience, yes, simply because I thought that the
  facts deserved disclosure and consideration. The public should
  know. Even if they're not true, the fact is they appear to
  have some degree of plausibility, so they should be considered
  on their own weight.

  By the way, I was caught completely off guard by Colonel
  Corso's book. I did not know the book existed until Jared
  Anderson called here and spoke to John Schwartz, one of my
  VPs, who got me on the phone immediately and said, "Did you
  know there's a book that describes transfers of technology
  from either Roswell or some other crash to AT&T?" That was the
  first I heard of it.

  As for what you call patriotism: We are our government, Jeff.
  The government is us. We have this perception of a dyspeptic,
  detached entity with X-Files guys running around in it,
  Men-in-Black running around in it, abusive IRS guys running
  around in it -- all those reasons are used by people who are
  insurrectional in their thinking. I don't happen to share
  those views. I happen to love this country and the people who
  live here, and I think that if they have a gripe or a beef, it
  deserves to be aired. And this is one of those that appears to
  deserve to be aired.... I raised that very issue in a letter
  to, dare I say, Secretary of Defense William Cohen. I stated
  my concern that -- what do they say, "Sooth the savage beast"?
  -- I'm concerned that a "savage beast" will emerge eventually
  from the disinformation, lack of information, strangely
  conflicting or compelling stories, and the lack of a basic
  kind of town-hall sit-down to discuss these matters. I mean,
  how expensive is it for the government to respond to a million
  FOIA requests a year, compared with one concerted effort to
  gather all the information, keep it pure, break down a few
  barriers that might be left over from some nameless classified
  project....?

  RENSE: It sounds like you don't subscribe to the idea of a
  fifty-year, coordinated cover-up of the UFO subject.

  SHULMAN: I think I would have to see actual evidence of a
  coordinated cover-up. It's not that I don't subscribe to it.
  It's that I don't as yet see evidence of anything other than
  bureaucracy, technical deficiencies in requests [for
  information], a disinclination on the part of the government
  to discuss the matter. I think, if anything, I'd call it a
  fifty-year disinclination, rather than cover-up.

  RENSE: But the reasons for that "disinclination" are the
  key...

  SHULMAN: That's correct. That's one of the things we raised in
  the Shadowlake Invitation page on our web site [an open letter
  to the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff and other
  top officials to participate in an open forum on the subject
  of UFOs.]

  RENSE: That letter has caused a lot of reaction. Who wrote
  that?

  SHULMAN: It was written by American Computer Company. You have
  people working here, including myself, who are less than
  inclined to seek the public spotlight on this issue. We are
  not what you'd call publicity hounds.

  RENSE: I understand. What is your personal opinion about the
  ET issue, vis a vis our military and our government?

  SHULMAN: My personal opinion is a very troubled one. I have a
  degree of personal integrity that forbids my [drawing
  conclusions] until I've seen the absolute facts. I have not
  concluded one way or the other. But I am inclined to believe
  that it is more likely that there is some shred of truth to
  visitation than that there is no shred of truth.

  RENSE: Do you expect any more information from your consultant
  to come through ACC's web site?

  SHULMAN: I can't say at this moment. We have a plan in place,
  that we're considering, to raise the ante a little bit to try
  to generate some kind of reaction out of the Department of
  Defense that might lean toward the town-hall, public-forum
  type of meeting. But I really don't want to reveal any more
  about this now.

  RENSE: Is the consultant's agenda, in your opinion, personal,
  or is he or she being directed by any agency?

  SHULMAN: The consultant does not work, to my knowledge, on
  this particular story for any agency, because that would
  probably violate the consultant's security oath. The
  consultant has been advised, and has advised us, that the
  information that he or she has given us is "allowed" to be
  given to us by whatever agency he or she consults to, because
  the information was obtained other than through their
  employment by the U.S. government. Meaning, the guy worked at
  AT&T, came across this information, and was not working for
  the federal government at the time, so the federal government
  cannot prevent him or her from releasing it to us. But to be
  very distinct here... the federal government is not
  particularly happy that the information is being given out.

  RENSE: How do you know that?

  SHULMAN: That's a comment from the consultant. He said, "I
  don't think they're happy that I'm talking. I don't think
  they're upset, but I don't think they're happy."

  RENSE: To summarize: Would you say that you think the
  information given by the consultant is credible and
  believable? This seems to go without saying, or you wouldn't
  have put it on your web site.

  SHULMAN: "The information" is rather broad. There are a lot of
  different parts to this, and some feel more accurate to me
  than others.

  RENSE: On balance, would you say that ACC's web postings on
  this subject are important?

  SHULMAN: That's been said to me. Again, we did not do it to
  attract this kind of publicity. We did it because we thought
  we would attract some interest from someone, somewhere, who
  might know whether it's true or not -- meaning other than from
  sources that the consultant has, such as past contacts with
  John Morton [formerly of Bell Labs], William Shockley, others
  at AT&T and Defense who were involved with him at the time.
  The problem is, too many people are trying to read into it,
  Jeff. If it's true, it's true -- if it's not, it's not. I was
  not there in 1947. I cannot swear if it is or isn't. A
  complete charade could be presented to me, and I could be
  fooled if it were presented properly. It could be suggested
  that the consultant is a bold-faced liar, or that he has had
  information given to him that is untrue but looks very
  plausible and believable at the level of detail that we
  presently know.

  RENSE: Thanks very much for your time.

  [Jeff Rense has invited Jack Shulman to be a live guest on
  "Sightings on the Radio," where many of the foregoing issues
  might be explored in greater depth. No date for that interview
  has yet been announced. Meanwhile, CNI News will continue to
  pursue the ACC/Bell Labs/Roswell story.]


NOTE-  Shulman was a guest on Sightings on the Radio and that interview can
be heard via RealAudio.  Go to http://www.sightings.com for more
information on this topic.



Search for other documents from or mentioning: steve

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com