From: Joe McGonagle <joe.nul> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:54:33 -0000 Archived: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 10:59:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:45:12 -0400 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 Apologies for the frequent snips, but I am homing in on some aspects of the original thread which were interspersed with material about which I have no comment to offer: <snip> >Harney seems to feel that indeed all the above data hasn't been >kept secret. This from a country that just got a FOI system >going. Why was it needed if everything was available? > >Yes, I had forgotten absence of evidence is evidence for >absence. > <snip> By the same token, I hope that you would agree that absence of evidence is not proof of anything? >12,000 people worked in Secret at Bletchley Park with no public >admission for more than 20 years. >And secrets can't be kept? <snip> In the case of Bletchley park, there were easily understood reasons for the requirement of secrecy. The reasoning behind any witholding of information offering conclusive proof of the ETH would not, in my opinion, convince people like David Shayler for instance to keep quiet? >I pointed out that information about UFOs is clearly being >witheld unless one is foolish enough to believe that the only >info about UFOs in these documents is what is not whited out and >the rest is Sources and Methods. Why was it filed under UFOs? >Please note that the 1996 version of the NSA Affidavit to Judge >Gesell is only about 20% blacked out compared with 80% in the >early version. But the UFO documents can only be 2-4% open? But >nothing about UFOs is being covered up.? Not every observation >of an auto involves a license plate. But the make and model and >colour can be very useful. <snip> Just because information is withheld, it does not mean that such information amounts to conclusive proof of the ETH, which seems to me to be the inference which you are making- do you find it difficult to accept that there could be other information which the authorities would prefer to withhold, for instance, the participation of the U.K. in certain enquiries/operations? >I show the documents to demonstrate that UFO information is >being witheld despite claims by the US government and sceptics >to the contrary . That I am effective in my presentations does >not detract from the fact that UFO information is being >withheld. Remember that I also show the blacked out CIA UFO >documents on which one can read 8 useless words. The CIA IS >withholding UFO information like it or not. Effective >showmanship or not. <snip> >Have you forgotten that during the cold war both Russia and the >US witheld information from the public that each knew the other >government was aware of... overflights of U-2 aircraft?. >Reconnaissance aircraft of the other side were shot down when >getting too close. No public discussion. >Remember that FOI has many restrictions including National >Security. I provide a whole page in my Final Report on Operation >Majestic 12. >Surely it is not possible that you believe that the government >of the UK will not withhold any classified information? >Stan Friedman >in awe of the naivite I have in my possession (probably in contravention of the Official Secrets Act) a copy of a pamphlet which I was issued with during military training. It is classified "Restricted". You may think that this contains something like infantry tactics, or other low-grade classified information, but it is actually about electrical safety! The UK military are absolutely paranoid about security classifications, yet I struggle to see the need for information about how to wire a domestic mains plug or how far apart earth rods should be placed to be classified at all. I have visited the PRO several times, and read/copied declassified Secret and Top Secret documents. Also, during my army career, I was frequently exposed to similarly classified material. In many cases, there is an obvious reason for the classification, but in others, such as the Flying Saucer Working Party document, there is apparently no rhyme or reason for the classification. What I am getting at is that I accept the various Governments are withholding information about UFOs, but much of that information is bound to be of a trivial nature. Of the material that is withheld but is not trivial, it most likely relates to operational systems or processes which they may have good reason to keep classified. There is no reason to think that they are withholding absolute proof of the ETH. Furthermore, if people like Shayler can blow the whistle on assassination plots against Ghadaffi (qs) by MI6 because of "moral issues", I think it even more likely that someone would reveal secrets relating to UFOs for those same "moral issues". Joe McGonagle Overwhelmed by the paranoid state (of people's minds _and_ nations)!
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp