UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jan > Jan 2

Re: The Measure Of Dick Hall - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 00:54:47 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 12:59:08 -0500
Subject: Re: The Measure Of Dick Hall - Gates

 >From: Karl Pflock <Ktperehwon@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:27:04 EST
 >Subject: Re: The Measure Of Dick Hall
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net

 >Dick Et Al,

 >>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.

 >A good idea, Dick, though I hope you will stick to the facts and
 >refrain from the temptation to indulge in libelous statements
 >such as those below. If both of us stick to the facts, then the
 >air can be cleared. If not... Meanwhile, on advice of counsel,
 >I'll be supplying you and Fred Whiting with copies of the
 >relevant correspondence by snail mail.

 >>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.

 >Sigh... Let's hope what follows ends this exchange here and the
 >discussion will be continued in the semi-private manner Dick has

 >First, my Roswell-research grant from the Fund was approved
 >in early April 1993.

 >Second, not long thereafter (proabably early in the summer of
 >'93; I don't have any documentation to which I can refer at the
 >moment), Fred Whiting loaned me the Fund's uncut Roswell witness
 >videotapes for use in my Fund-sponsored work. I have no
 >knowledge of whether any other Fund officer/board member was
 >aware of this, but I have no doubt that Fred, who was the Fund's
 >secretary-treasurer and a board member for something like 14
 >years, acted well within his authority as the custodian of the
 >Fund's research materials.

Of course everybody should realize that just because Fred was an
officers/board member, secretary-treasurer, does not necessarly
mean that he in fact "acted well within his authority." That
remains to be seen. It could have easily required a full vote of
the board to release research material. On the other hand at the
time it may not have mattered to the board and everybody yawned.

I am curious if there was in fact a letter from Fred stating
that he had spoke to the board and they approved.

 >Moreover, can anyone reasonably doubt that it was appropriate
 >for me to have been given access to these materials, given that
 >the Fund had given me a grant of several thousand dollars to do
 >an in-depth investigation? Is it more reasonable to believe that
 >Dick Hall and the other board members and officers would have
 >preferred that I do only a sorta-in-depth job?

Personally I can reasonably doubt. Just because you get a grant
does not mean you automatically have access to any and all
information in the hands of the people giving the grant. Even
without the information a person getting a grant could do an
indepth job.

Wasn't Stan Friedman given a grant by the FUND for research into
the MJ-12 documents? If so was he given full and complete access
to every particle of information and or videos in the hands of
the fund as part of his research?



[ 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