From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:24:49 +0000
Archived: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:28:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Discreditation Of Ufology


>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:37:45 +0000
>Subject: Re: Discreditation Of Ufology

><snip>

>I have to confess that I am blissfully ignorant about the
>situation in the USA. I know that historically, the US
>intelligence agencies did take an active interest in ufology.

>Here in the UK, the authorities generally hold anything to do
>with UFOs at arms length, but there have been exceptions as Nick
>Redfern discusses in his book 'On the trail of the Saucer Spies'.

>The only active interest in the UK was not directly concerned
>with ufology per se, but the activities of some ufologists
>outside of ufology. Some people drawn to ufology have anarchic or
>otherwise offbeat interests and beliefs. British ufology was (and
>may even still be) used as a cover for extreme right-wing
>activities. Some elements within British ufology were involved
>with the Animal Liberation Front which had carried out letter
>bombing campaigns amongst other disruptive and dangerous
>activities. Naturally the authorities took an active interest in
>thos individuals, but ufology was incidental to their interest.

>There is some evidence here that British intelligence took a
>passive interest in ufology, with representatives attending UFO
>conferences incognito. This was probably in the context of the
>risk of exposure of classified projects through ufological
>activity. Some ufologists (Tim Good and Matthew Williams for
>example) took to hanging around sensitive military installations,
>and consequently drew interest from the authorities.

>It seems reasonable to me to assume that any military interest in
>ufology is only indirectly associated with UFOs. Having said
>that, even an indirect interest might encourage the authorities
>to attempt to undermine ufology, and in the past, this might have
>been best achieved through debunking tactics. My point is that
>using groups like the Disclosure Project and the Exopolitics
>Movement would be a more effective channel for any such operation
>today.

>The intelligence services are confronted today with far more
>serious threats than the examples given above, and I would expect
>any activity by them to be targeted towards the least cost,
>maximum effect. Paying a handful of 'debunkers' to spout off
>doesn't seem very efficient to me.

>In spite of what I wrote above, my own opinion is that the
>authorities only exercise a passive interest in ufology today,
>but were they to take an active interest, they would use the
>channels mentioned above.

For your opinion to have any credibility, Joe, you need explain
in some detail just exactly why things are different today.

When British Intelligence Services were tracking ufologists with
an interest in secret or highly sensitive secure installations,
these locations were prime targets for nuclear powers in a tense,
cold war context. What are the 'far more serious threats'
confronted today?

The problem with your stance is that it is evidence-based in the
most naive way possible: of course, over time, government secrets
are laid bare; this means that all the evidence is old evidence,
and there is no contemporary evidence. But in the case of
government secrets, that will always, by definition, be the case.

The question to ask is whether there is any qualitative
difference between government openness now and in the period in
the past for which evidence of Intelligence Service interest now
exists. The answer is, of course, a resounding 'no'. Only a few
days ago there was irrefutable evidence of this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266889.stm

Take a look at the patient, serious work on this issue undertaken
by Richard Dolan. What you see is that at any particular point in
time for which hard evidence is available there is a measurable
gulf between what a government says and what it does in this
domain. The reasons for this may indeed change over time, but the
basic facts don't.


-- Gerald O'Connell
http://www.onlyport.com



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/subscribers/

Your access info works there too...

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.