UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 30

Re: Magonia Supplement 43

From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:28:29 -0000
Archived: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:02:06 -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

>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:26 +0000
>>Subject: Magonia Supplement 43

>>Magonia Supplement 43 is now available on the Magonia website.
>>Here is John Harney's Editorial:
>>One of the points I made, and not for the first time, was about
>>the impossibility of the evidence for ET spacecraft being kept
>>secret. The ETH, at least as it is interpreted by many
>>ufologists, depends on persuading people to believe that it is
>>possible to keep the saucers secret. Stanton Friedman commented:

>>"The naivety shown by the notion that we would have access to
>>radar and spy satellite info, re space and airborne uncorrelated
>>targets produced by the Aerospace Defense Command and NRO
>>satellites and collected by NSA while listening to their foreign
>>equivalents is monumental.

>>"Just note that more than 95% of the 156 UFO documents released
>>by the NSA are whited out. No way that is all sources and
>>methods data."

>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?

Where did I say that everything was available?

>Yes, I had forgotten absence of evidence is evidence for
>absence.

Stan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" sounds
great, especially if you can say it without getting the giggles,
as you no doubt can, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

>I gather you and Roberts and Clark believe there are no black
>budget programs in the UK or anywhere else.

>The DCI admitted 6 years ago because of a court case that his
>black budget that year was 26.6 $Billion.

>Have you read Tim Weiner's excellent book "Blank Check"?

>The stealth fighter was developed and 50+ built over 10 years
>for about 10 Billlion$ in secret. The NRL Corona Elint satellite
>was launched in 1960 after a dozen failures. Its existence was
>not admitted until 1995 when they wanted to brag about their
>accomplishments and of course the technology had been greatly
>improved.

>12,000 people worked in Secret at Bletchley Park with no public
>admission for more than 20 years.

>And secrets can't be kept?

>Neither the Aerospace Defense Command nor the NRO, nor the NSA
>publish their findings. They literally spend billions a year and
>secrets can't be kept??

Perhaps I have not made myself clear, so I'll try again. Yes, I
know governments have Black Budgets and keep military projects
secret for many years, but I wasn't referring to them. I was
writing about UFOs.

With UFOs we have to make a distinction between the UFOs
themselves and investigations of them. Governments can conduct
secret UFO investigations, but so can anybody. If you
investigate a UFO report you can keep this secret or publish
your findings, as you wish, but you can't keep the UFO itself
secret, because other people may have witnessed it or conducted
investigations. The point is that governments can keep military
projects secret because thay have _control_ of the situation.
They have no control over UFOs, which can appear anywhere, at
any time; they thus have no chance of keeping them secret.
Convincing evidence could fall into the hands of any government,
organisation, or individual, but this is less likely to happen
with a tightly controlled military project.

>>I replied, pointing out that he hadn't told us
>>how UFO information gathered from radar or satellites, by
>>governments and private organisations, amateur or professional,
>>everywhere in the world is kept secret.

>I have seen no such reply. But the answer is obvious:

>Through the standard procedures involving secrity clearances,
>need to know, well protected communication systems, etc.

>There is no comparison between the government capabilities and
>private ones. Who competes with the NRO or ADC?

>Who has private or amateur fleets of very sophisiticated
>aircraft and satellites to monitor air and space intruding
>vehicles?

Ah, so the UFOs are specially designed to be detectable only by
highly sophisticated equipment carried on high-performance
aircraft available only to those organisations which can
guarantee to keep the evidence which they obtain secret?

>>I also wondered how he
>>knew what was in the whited out parts of the UFO documents, as
>>he implies that this hidden information concerns evidence for
>>alien spacecraft.

>Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't; I wrote "implies" not "states" - see above.

>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?

Information about UFOs, or information about UFO
_investigations_?

>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.

>>If the sceptics indulge in "research by
>>proclamation" as Friedman constantly tells us, then surely he is
>>indulging in research by showmanship in waving whited-out
>>documents at UFO conferences.

>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.

>The purpose of a presentation is to communicate. Perhaps that is
>why my Leeds talk was rated 10/10. I communicated facts and
>data... apparently with showmanship.

>>Anyway, I intend to press for a plausible explanation as to how
>>every government in the world has managed to preserve the Secret
>>of the Saucers for over 50 years. I will probably have to wait a
>>long time.

>More absurdity. As explained above there are standard procedures
>for dealing with classified information on a need-to-know basis
>by people with appropriate clearances. Have you ever held a
>clearance?

Yes, but you can't classify information unless you _control_ it.
You can keep your UFO _investigations_ secret, but anyone can do
that. But you don't know what the UFOs are going to do tomorrow,
so you can't keep them secret.

>What is this nonsense about every government in the world? I
>certainly never said that. The number of governments with
>sophisticated ADCs, spy satellites, sophisticated monitoring
>aircraft, etc is a small number. I doubt if Bolivia or Paraquay
>or a whole slew of African nations have such systems.

So every government in the world falls neatly into one of two
categories with regard to obtaining and disclosing UFO evidence.
These are (a) countries with sophisticated surveillance systems,
satellites, aircraft, radar, etc., all of which are guaranteed
to obey the USA in its policy of keeping the saucers secret, and
(b) those countries which are unable or unwilling to keep such
secrets, but lack the amazingly sophisticated equipment
apparently necessary to obtain vital UFO evidence. Thus the
secret of the saucers is safe. How convenient.

>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.

Yes, if the Russians knew and the US knew they knew and both
sides mutually decided to keep this information from the public
then what's the problem? They had joint _control_ of the
situation. They were not dealing with something unknown and
unpredictable.

>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?

Of course they withhold classified information, but there is no
good reason to believe that they have any startling evidence
about UFOs.

>Stan Friedman
>in awe of the naivite


John Harney


[ 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