UpDate: Re: John Carpenter's Australian Video - Gates
From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 22:00:29 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 21:30:42 -0400
Subject: UpDate: Re: John Carpenter's Australian Video - Gates
>Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 22:04:35 -0500
>From: Gary Hart <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: John Carpenter's Australian Video
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com>
>>Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 14:00:45 -0400
>>From: Ann Mulvey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>Subject: Re: John Carpenter's Australian Video
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com>
>>If you are indeed making this a legal case, I strongly suggest
>>that you seek your attorney's advice before posting any more
>>charges against Carpenter. If your attorney gave you the high
>>sign to do that - it's time for another attorney. This kind of
>>behavior does nothing to help abductees, ufology, MUFON or
>The post was from a colleague and posted as received. If you
>don't like it, don't read it. They are making observations based
>on their experience. I know who it is and respect their wishes
>in one case and removed ID where I had not gotten specific
>permission to include it in the other case. The form was
Naturally we should 'respect' all abductee claims to privacy,
_But_ when we get an email where people are just dying to know
who the person was who sent it, we are to instantly not respect
privacy any more and disclose the name. Sounds like a double
>You may not like anonymity. Many others I talk to see it has a
>purpose at times. They would rather hear the message than not if
>from a reliable source. Ann, I can appreciate your feelings,
>however, the message was perhaps meant for those others
>>>Lastly, I called State Committee of Social Workers at
>>>573-751-0885 and inquired about Mr. Carpenter. Not _one_
>>>complaint has been filed against him. I sure don't understand
>>>that given what you've told us about the people that you've
>>>spoken to about their issues with the man.
>Perhaps you should better understand how much work it has been
>and continues to be to put the evidence together. We are
>strengthen- ing our case. It will take one or more months. You
>take a case to the board only when it is ready, finished,
>complete. You present a complete case so their need for further
>investigation is minimal.
This is very true of State govt. If they need to conduct some
kind of exaustive investigation, they will likely do nothing
unless it is a leaking chemical plant which could cause problems
with thousands of people. Bottom line is make the case as all
encompassing as possible, with all evidence present, then give
it to govt officials.
>140 people is a very large number of people to even try to
>contact. Please leave this to those who are more informed about
>it and gracious accept that it is being worked on.
>>>This is like loud screeching background noise to the real issue
>>>of getting those 120 people notified. We _know_ they don't know
>>>their files were sold and need to learn that truth!
As I have observed before, the issue has been around for at
least three years, perhaps 4... what's another couple of months.
Apparently MUFON has known about it for quite awhile and has
chosen to do nothing thus far.
>Then talk to JC, NIDS or MUFON and make them do something. John
>never agreed to do anything in his last message, which is
>typical. Get MUFON to make a public statement, for instance. The
>same with NIDS. Go after the people who have all the names.
Alas, if Ann attempts to get a public statement out of MUFON, I
suspect she will meet the stone wall of silence.