UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jan > Jan 1

Re: The Measure Of Dick Hall - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:46:55 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:54:40 -0500
Subject: Re: The Measure Of Dick Hall - Hall

 >From: Ktperehwon@aol.com
 >Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:12:07 EST
 >Subject: The Measure Of Dick Hall
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net

 >Dear Fellow List Fiends -

 >Second, I had hoped to have ended this thread with my last
 >posting, but Dick found it necessary once again to overstep the
 >bounds of good manners and good sense with the following


When people threaten me with a lawsuit, after saying all sorts
of insulting things about me all over the place (as in Moseley's
filthy rag which you equate with sensible, rational UFO
research), I think this is something the List should know about.
"Manners" be damned.

 >>- Dick

 >So I'm left with no choice but to respond. Rest assured that
 >this is my final word (here) on this matter. Note that, as Errol
 >has reminded me, legal and ethical considerations prevent me
 >from quoting directly from private communications I've received
 >from Dick and Don Berliner, so I am constrained to paraphrase. I
 >assure List members that my paraphrasing accurately represents
 >both the tone and substance of these communications. If Dick and
 >Don think otherwise, they need only post their unexpurgated
 >messages to me on UpDates. Now then...

 >On 28 Dec, I sent this off-list message to Dick:

 >"MR. HALL - Quoting from your 27dec01 post to UFO UpDates,
 >which I've retained for future reference if necessary:

 >"'Among the more honorable Roswell researchers has been Kevin
 >Randle [I most definitely agree - KTP], who (like all of us) was
 >surprised to learn that his colleague Don Schmitt was somewhat
 >ethically deprived (as is Pflock when it comes to purloined

 >"Look who's calling whom ethically deprived! Don't push it,
 >buster, or you'll find yourself on the short end of a very
 >unpleasant and expensive legal action. - Most sincerely, KARL

 >To this Dick replied (same date) with a childish

[read 'well->deserved']

 >retort of the
 >sort most of us left off of in junior high school, but which
 >those of us who know the private, real Dick well have come to
 >expect from him at the slightest provocation.

You know almost nothing about me privately. But when I am
struck, I do strike back as you are learning.

 >To which I oh-so-maturely responded (same date): "How very
 >mature of you..."

 >Obviously, what's at issue is Dick's subtle attempt to raise
 >questions in list members' minds about my integrity: "as is
 >Pflock when it comes to purloined tapes." Here's what's behind
 >this sleazy and baseless canard:

[See my comments below]

 >(1) When I was conducting my Roswell research under a grant from
 >the Fund for UFO Research, Fred Whiting, then an officer and
 >board member of the Fund, loaned me the Fund's collection of
 >uncut videotape interviews with Roswell witnesses and
 >"witnesses" so that I would have the benefit of full knowledge
 >of what these people had to say and how they said it.

 >(2) On February 29, 1996, I returned ALL tapes to the Fund
 >through Dick Hall, then chairman of the Fund.

 >(3) More than three years later, on June 15, 1999, in response
 >to a request from Tom Tulien and Jan Aldrich for a listing of
 >the materials in my UFO library and research files for inclusion
 >in the Proceedings of the Sign Historical Group UFO History
 >Workshop, I sent Tom and Jan a very hastily written e-mail
 >message summarizing my holdings. With reference to my Roswell
 >materials, I wrote: "...includes complete set of all uncut
 >videos of Roswell witnesses and 'witnesses' done by and for
 >FUFOR." I hit the Send button without reviewing what I'd
 >written. Had I taken a couple of moments to check my words, I
 >would have caught my error and rewitten thus: "includes research
 >notes taken while viewing...," etc. Haste makes waste (and

 >(4) On Sept. 11, 1999, I recieved a remarkably intemperate - no,
 >downright nasty and threatening - letter (dated Aug. 31) from
 >Don Berliner, Dick's successor as Fund chairman. Don advised
 >that he'd been told I had a complete set of the Fund Roswell
 >interview tapes and was planning to make copies available to
 >Sign Historical Group Workshop participants. He then ranted that
 >I had no right to the tapes and that Fred Whiting had no
 >authority to loan them to me and had done so without the
 >knowledge of his Fund colleagues. (Hmmm... I had a Fund grant to
 >investigate Roswell, but it was inappropriate to make available
 >to me important primary research materials possessed by the

 >He went on to tell me that if I didn't immediately return all
 >copies of the tapes, the Fund would take legal action against
 >me. To underscore the Fund's resolve, he pointed out that such
 >action had been taken against Steven Greer for distributing
 >copies of a UFO Research Coalition publication.

 >Don and I know each other fairly well and have even worked
 >together on some aspects of Roswell. Yet instead of approaching
 >me like a colleague, inquiring if the information he had was
 >accurate - it wasn't in any respect - and, if so, noting that it
 >appeared that I'd forgotten the tapes were Fund property and to
 >please return them, he assumed the worst and acted the bully.

 >(5) On Sept. 11, '99, I replied to Berliner in part:

 >"For the record: (1) Fred Whiting, in his capacity as an officer
 >and member of the board of the Fund, loaned the Fund Roswell
 >witness/'witness' tapes to me as research material for use
 >during my Fund-supported Roswell investigation. Clearly, this
 >was entirely proper and appropriate to the work I was doing on
 >behalf of the Fund. (2) On February 29, 1996..., I returned all
 >Fund tapes to the Fund via Dick Hall at the Fund post office box
 >address. (3) With the return of the Fund tapes, I no longer had
 >any Fund property of any sort in my possession and have not
 >since. I regret my haste in preparing information designed to
 >facilitate cooperation and information sharing among colleagues
 >led to this misunderstanding and trust this letter and its
 >enclosures, as well as my action today to straighten things out
 >with the SHG folks [e-mail correcting the reference to the
 >tapes; see corrected information on p. 197, Proceedings], will
 >bring this matter to a close.

 >"It is unfortunate you chose to be so confrontational and
 >threatening in your initial communication to me. School-
 >yard-style bluster and threats of legal action are hardly the
 >way to begin addressing such an issue with a colleague or, for
 >that matter, anyone else. However, since you chose such a
 >course, I feel it is incumbent upon me to put you on notice that
 >I will not hesitate to take legal action against you personally
 >and, if appropriate, the Fund and its officers and board should
 >it come to my attention that you or anyone associated with the
 >Fund have made any utterances of any kind in any context calling
 >into question my honor, integrity, and professionalism with
 >respect to the Fund tapes and my use of them. I regret the
 >necessity for the foregoing statement, but I've suffered enough
 >blackguarding at the hands of ufological paranoids, fools, and
 >opportunists [believer & debunker alike], and I'm not about to
 >take any such from you without exacting a heavy price."

 >This is where the matter stood until Dick chose to insinuate it
 >into his ad hominem attack on me here on UpDates, thus
 >precipitating my "have a care" message to him.

Spoken by the master of ad hominem!

 >There is no doubt that Dick Hall is fully aware of all of the
 >foregoing. He knows damn' well there was nothing underhanded or
 >in the least out of line involved. His and Don's problem is that
 >I, a Fund grantee, had arrived at the "wrong" conclusions about

 >I leave it to List members to decide for themselves how Dick and
 >I measure up ethically.

This self-serving statement is false and distorted in so many
particulars that I intend early in the New Year to respond in
detail. However, I don't want to shoot from the lip so I will
first review the files of documents and correspondence, which I
don't have time for right now.

Within the next few weeks I will post a notice to the List that
my rebuttal is available, and will send an e-mail copy to anyone
who is interested off-list. We can air this bit of dirty laundry
that way in semi-private.

The simple truth is that the set of videotaped interviews with
Roswell witnesses were quite unethically 'purloined' by Whiting
and Pflock behind the backs of members of the Fund for UFO
Research Executive Committee, without either our knowledge or
consent. We didn't even know about it until after Whiting had
resigned from the Fund and we asked him to return the tapes to
us. This was not done in the context of the Fund's support for
Pflock's research nor in the time scale claimed by Mr. Pflock,
as I hope to demonstrate.

More later. Let's get on with some constructive exchanges.

- Dick Hall

[ 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