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

UFO Frauds [was: Possible Action Pending ...]-

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 17:40:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:41:31 -0400
Subject: UFO Frauds [was: Possible Action Pending ...]-


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:48:44 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud

 >I have suggested for years that we do not participate in
 >programs and on venues in which those who have exploited UFOs
 >appear. I have no problem with sharing a stage with Stan
 >Friedman, for example, but balk at sharing it with say, a Don
 >Schmitt. Here is a guy who did a great deal of damage to the
 >Roswell UFO case and to the field. Yet, he still lectures and he
 >still investigates and people believe what he says.

 >I think we can all put together a list of those who don't
 >deserve our support. I'm thinking here of those who have lied
 >about their credentials, lied about their background, lied about
 >what they have accomplished, have been convicted of felonies
 >(and there are several who regularly appear on the lecture
 >circuit), those who had claimed military service they didn't
 >have, and those who are simply unreliable.

 >I'm not suggesting here that I would fail to share a stage with
 >those with whom I disagree. Karl Pflock and I are at opposite
 >ends of the spectrum on some UFO matters, but I respect his
 >research but reject some of his conclusions. I would, however,
 >share the stage with him.

 >I do like this idea of boycotting the enablers because this is
 >the way to eliminate the forum for them and get rid of their
 >opinions. I am not suggesting we boycott the forums of those who
 >disagree, only those who have muddied the waters of Ufology.
 >Refuse to appear with those people. Make it clear that you don't
 >want to have anything to do with them. And use, as a criterion,
 >their lies. Reed is a good example. Schmitt is a good example.
 >Mel Noel is a good example.

Kevin,

If the criteria for boycotting speakers includes those who have
deliberately muddied Ufological waters, participated in hoaxes,
and are simply unreliable, then I am rather surprised that Karl
Pflock isn't one of those near the top of your list.

To take a particularly egregious example out of his past, how
about his participation in a cattle mutilation hoax in the early
1980s? This is all dealt with in great detail in the little
known 1984 book "Mute Evidence" by Daniel Kagan and Ian Summers.
Most people on the List probably don't even know about this.

Pflock, using a false name ("Kurt Peters"), teamed up with a
"private investigator" pushing a phony mutilation conspiracy
[rogue CIA agents field-testing deadly bacteria designed to
selectively wipe out Asians] told to them by a pathological
liar, felon, and conman.

According to Kagan and Summers, Pflock was trying to get a book
publishing deal and possibly a share of the reward money put out
for solving the mutilations.

This has many of the same elements as the modern Jonathan Reed
hoax, including pseudonyms, association with low-lifes, a
preposterous hoax, and all so Pflock could make a buck.

Pflock's "explanation" for all this is incredibly lame, as
outlined in Kevin's "Roswell Encyclopedia." Pflock says he used
the "Kurt Peters" pseudonym because he recognized Kagan and
Summers and possible book-publishing rivals. He didn't want them
to recognize him for who he really was, a rival author [yeah,
right!]. Unfortunately Kevin labels this a "harmless deception."

As for his association with the conmen and their idiotic cattle
mutilation conspiracy, Pflock says he was just looking for a
book-writing project. Talk about bottom feeding!

Pflock obviously finds his past "Kurt Peters" hoax episode
highly embarrassing and still tries to make light of it. But
however he tries to spin it, it is a good indication of just who
we are really dealing with.

We could go on about Pflock's suspicious CIA past, such as how
he just happened to join NICAP and became chairman of NICAP's
Washington, D.C. subcommittee while other CIA operatives were
probably trying to destroy NICAP from within.

Well maybe that was all a big "coincidence", but how about the
following examples of how Pflock has muddied the waters since
then:

Remember how he tried to "explain" Roswell initially as the
crash of a non-existent flying wing? Then he got religion and
found Project Mogul, something that actually existed. Or how
about another of his dumb Roswell "explanations" that the small
caskets of Glenn Dennis' story were needed for the child victims
of an equally non-existent 1947 Roswell polio epidemic?

Here is Pflock and the polio epidemic nonsense on Updates:

http://virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/jan/m09-022.shtml

Here is Pflock at least apologizing for the misinformation:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/feb/m03-004.shtml

Then there was the curious alteration of Roswell Daily Record
stories put on Congressmen Schiff's Web page while Pflock was
providing "informal assistance" (his words) to Schiff during his
Roswell investigation, and Pflock's wife, a member of Schiff's
staff, was placed in charge of handling it. The alterations had
Mack Brazel saying exactly the opposite of what he really said
and tried to paint Jesse Marcel as the sole perpetrator of
Roswell. Here's an old Usenet post about it:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=roswell+schiff+rudiak+brazel+daily+record+pflock+group:alt.paranet.ufo&hl=en&lr=&selm=644qml%24n4h%40eve.enteract.com&rnum=1

How about Pflock's use of flagrant character assassination and
lying to dismiss Roswell testimony, Jesse Marcel again being a
case in point? Some examples from Updates past and my responses:

http://virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/jul/m28-004.shtml
http://virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/jul/m28-001.shtml
http://virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/aug/m06-012.shtml

Who is Karl Pflock? Pflock is a debunker, pure and simple. As
I'm sure Kevin remembers, Sheridan Cavitt, of all people, summed
him up pretty well in his 1994 Air Force interview: "Pflock is
OUR debunker. I lean towards him."

For some reason there is a Ufological double standard in the
treatment of dishonest debunkers (is there another kind?) posing
as "Ufologists" vs. dishonest Ufologist "advocates". The
"advocates" exposed as liars, frauds or weasels are banished
from the kingdom. But the Ufologist/debunkers receive a "get out
of jail free" card, and are free to defraud and defraud again.

If an "advocate" had been caught red-handed in a sleazy hoax
like Karl Pflock was by Kagan and Summers, that would have been
it. Their credibility would have been permanently shot and they
would have been thrown out with the trash. Such things happened,
e.g., to Bill Moore and Bob Oechsler (despite having actually
done some good research along the way).

But Pflock is still with us, to be treated as an esteemed
colleague worthy to share the stage with. I'm afraid I don't get
it.


David Rudiak






[ 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