Collins and The Angleton Diaries - Fact or Fiction?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby ryguy » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:18 am

PRESS RELEASE

Please recirculate widely for the record.

Indeed, not only that but there is, to my off the cuff recollection at least, no mention at all of UFOs or "skin of craft" in any of the Modanese papers and I am explicit in saying that I am reviewing Modanese's work in addition to introducing my own applications of his work to the UFO problem explicitly.

Only an irrational person in complete denial of reality can doubt the textual analysis Caryn gives below. For Collins to suggest that Modanese was at all influenced by Angleton's notes is completely preposterous. The exact words cited by Collins as, it appears, coming from Angleton's notes of 1987 are identical to original words and phrasings I wrote in November of 1996 distributed widely to the UFO community. We also need to take a look at Kim Burrafato's article in UFO magazine on all this in the mid 90s or so.

It's quite clear that Collins is completely irrational in his fragmented remark below in a complete state of denial of the obvious.


On Feb 11, 2007, at 9:32 AM, caryn anscomb wrote:

[Hide Quoted Text]

Quoting Jack - 1996:

“..the qualitative picture a local field of positive cosmological constant
contributing to the local metric field in a small boundary layer around the skin of the space craft. The detailed structure of this boundary layer is somehow controlled by the EM brain-waves of the pilot in addition to the pilot’s Q* field, and other auxiliary EM fields and giant Q’s built into the ship’s architecture.”

I’m sitting here with your book in front of me, Bob – Page 158:

Quote:

“The qualitative picture is a local field of positive cosmological constants
contributing to the local metric field in a a small boundary layer around the skin of the craft. The layer was controlled by the EM brainwave of the pilot. The pilot also has a Q* type of field. Dr Einstein expanded.....The fuselage of the craft was more liken to a high temperature super-conductor to which the occupants do not feel the g forces at high accelerations or sharp turns........”

This last sentence is also taken from my writing. Caryn did not quote me enough. The Q-Ship paper also has my writing

Specifically, I mean his remarks that the fuselage of the craft is a high temperature superconductor, that the occupants do not feel high- g forces in sharp right-angle turns at very high apparent accelerations to the external observer, and that the ship is controlled in a direct mind-link between the pilot and the craft via the headband and the hand-imprint panels.
http://www.qedcorp.com/Q/Qship.html

There I am referring to Colonel Corso, but Corso did not know enough physics and never said anything about no g-forces. That is my work. Also Modanese does not say anything about that either. It's obvious that everything here that Angleton-Collins attribute to "Einstein" is directly plagiarized from my 1996 Q-Ship paper. No one ever saw the Angleton notes of 1987 which are looking more and more like a sleaze cheap dirty trick - why? That's the question.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension


Postby ryguy » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:41 am

Another from Sarfatti - a forward of a quote from Collins of an alleged excerpt from the notes:

-----

Excerpt from the notes....Rmc

15 Feb 2001

kenya08@xxxxxxxxx.net

“I read that grandfather attended a meeting at a special satellite dish on some remote lake in NC circa 1973 regarding intercepted CI from E. Germ. And that meeting went from detailed info on received Intel to an MJ meeting of 6 key players and only thing indicated was they have finalized anti-gravity and have a working scale model that has corrected tilt and fully stable. This would be in keeping with an earlier version and later refinement. Place in Carolina was very high tech security and over 30 various size dishes and did many, many things. It appears that mj meetings were held there. The entire place was rubber lined, copper mesh ceilings over rubber and was later closed.”


Interesting, but has no relevance to the specific issue below in which exact words of really novel original ideas of mine from my 1996 Q-Ship paper widely known on the web for ten years is used by Collins, perhaps via Angleton, as "Einstein's" from 1952. These specific ideas are not mentioned by Modanese or Corso although I am citing their work as background in the Q-Ship paper. A detailed textual analysis of the actual documents by independent competent critical thinkers will, I am confident, fully corroborate my claim of priority here.

--------

Amazingly...Colilns accuses Sarfatti of plagiarism....

Correct, because those items came from the Angleton notes. Don't confuse the issue.....Your Q-Ship paper was a plagiarized work using information from Modanese and other sources, probably Boylan, who got information from Angleton...Rmc


-------

Jack responds at length:

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:20:23 -0800 [02:20:23 PM CST]
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@ssssss.net>
To: Fidelio <Fidelio@sssss.com>
Cc: (removed cc list)

Subject: Re: Modanese paper & Collins 2nd ed plagiarizes my exact words from 1996 - Google's Smoking Gun!

Collins you insult the intelligence audience here, you have published my exact words in your book as coming from someplace else. That is plagiarism. You have no respect for scientific truth, no sense of rational scholarly thinking. I am an Ivy League graduate and I have basic skills of critical thinking that you seem not to have. My Q- Ship article is not plagiarism. I am citing my Modanese & Corso sources clearly in that paper that you take exact wordings of my original ideas from with minimal modification. What you cite of mine is not explicit or even implicit in Modanese and Corso, but is original from my mind. Also the stuff you lifted directly from my writing in 1996 is not at all in Modanese's paper because that paper says nothing about how alien flying
saucers work. Modanese is writing an academic paper! In any case, people will make up their own minds here who is guilty of plagiarism.

Voter Poll? What does George Knapp think of the evidence here? What does anyone else here think? Please put Collins back in touch with reality - I mean try. ;-)

-----

And responds again:

[quote]
Collins is obviously mentally deranged. I find it really offensive that the idiot
accuses me of plagiarism when he is obviously guilty. I suppose I could sue him but it's not worth it. In any case his book is completely discredited and I will make my complaint of plagiarism to Amazon in my review and I urge everyone else who has an interest in this topic to also do so. The real question is why is this happening? What is Angleton's role? Collins is obviously a mental midget out of his depth. He seems mind-controlled? What do you think of all this?

-----

Next up...George Knapp offers his take on the matter....
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:43 am

This was a brilliant writeup - so I wanted to offer it alone in one post.

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:57:33 -0800 [03:57:33 PM CST]
From: George Knapp <gknapp@xxxxxx.com>
To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@xxxxxxx.net>, Fidelio <Fidelio@xxxx.com>, Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@xxxxxx.com>
Cc: (cc list removed)

Subject: RE: Collins resorts to Orwellian 1984 Double-Think

Hey Bob,

You've fought the good fight here, but give it up. He's got you with a smoking gun in one hand and a bloody knife in the other. The language is damned near identical. Even if Jack borrowed material from a couple of sources, weaved it together in his own style, and failed to provide proper attribution (which certainly does not appear to be the case), you lifted it from him almost word for word. If you are intent on arguing that Jack stole it from Modanese or
the Day The Earth Stood Still, show it to us. Cite the passages that so closely resemble Jack's writings. It's on you.

Listen, man, mistakes happen. You've never written a book before. This is new for you. Maybe you pasted something into an early draft with the intention of rewriting the central idea and then didn't. As I recall, you did not have an editor to help with your first manuscript. If you had some help, you might have caught the mistake and either changed the language or added a footnote regarding the source of the material. You're a career military guy, not Stephen King. You screwed up. Everyone does. Take your lumps and move on.

Mine is just one opinion, but I always enjoy your contributions to this list, even when I disagree. I'm sure others feel the same way, and we look forward to reading your take on issues to come. It was a mistake. You're human. Life goes on.
Last edited by ryguy on Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:46 am

More feedback from other readers:

-----


Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:46:58 -0800 [04:46:58 PM CST]
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@xxxxxxx.net>
To: kenya08@xxxxxxx.net (Angleton)
Cc: (removed cc list)

Subject: Top NASA Space Scientist Censures Robert Collins's Plagiarism in "Exempt From Disclosure"

Creon Levit is a winner of the prestigious "Feynman Prize" for nanotechnology. He is
noted in many fields including space vehicle simulation, nano-electronics, virtual
reality...

On Feb 11, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Creon Levit (NASA AMES) wrote:

This fellow Collins did not "cite" you Jack. It appears that he stole from you, and
is now lying and evading in order to cover it up. Yet another case of a
self-proclaimed insider claiming to have received (unverifiable) "inside" information,
but who is instead simply muddying the waters with disinformation. Why?

Can Collins show us, i.e. annotate with citations to archival literature, any evidence
to back up his (ridiculous) claim that you "plagiarized" Modanese? No. Because you did
not. You cited Modanese. Where does Modanese talk about UFOs, mental control of
space-ships, or the Bohm potential? He doesn't - at least not in anything I've seen.
You were partially inspired by Modanese, as well as many others, all of whom you name,
whether they like it or not, in your formal and informal publications. Heck, didn't
we work with Modanese back at ISSO? Wasn't he on staff for a while at Bernie's
institute? Wasn't he even at the ISSO torsion conference?

For the record, as a scientist I have worked with Jack, closely, for over two decades.
I watched him and worked with him as he formed and reformed his ideas about
gravitation, quantum mechanics, consciousness, etc. He took no more from Modanese
than he did from Anderson, Bohm, Cummings, DeEspagnet, Einstein, Feynman, Gold,
Herbert, ... Recami, Shipov, Tesla, Vigier, Wesson, Yukawa, Zeldovich. literally A
through Z. This is part of how science is done. People go to meetings, read,
publish, and cite one another to share ideas, to learn, to encourage and to correct
one another so that we may collectively uncover more of the truth that lies within
Nature. A stark contrast to people who publish fictional UFO material while claiming
it to be fact.

Well, jack, I suppose you should accept as consolation that if people are plagiarizing
and/or miss-attributing your words and ideas, at least they are mis-attributing them
to Einstein.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby serponaut » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:55 am

The "why?" is important here.

Did the next diversion, or Serpo, or ***insert hoax***, which all take up the time and effort of the smart and the not so smart, just get it's legs cut off before it even started?

hmmm
serponaut
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:09 pm

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:08 pm

serponaut wrote:The "why?" is important here.

Did the next diversion, or Serpo, or ***insert hoax***, which all take up the time and effort of the smart and the not so smart, just get it's legs cut off before it even started?

hmmm


The 'why' is probably simpler than it appears. To sell books. Unfortunately the truly important work of Jack Sarfatti is obscured by this project. Sarfatti is committed to the dialectical synthesis of mind and matter- a project that spans the the entire history of spiritual speculation- now imbued with modern physics. In effect, he has contributed to the invention of a new and concise language to describe the conundrum. If the dichotomy of the ages is ever to be resolved it will owe it's resolution to this new Kabbalah which will contain within itself the ultimate transformatory moment for consciousness in general. (Dan Smith speaks to this.)

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby MikeJamieson » Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:47 pm

Wow. I came across all this stuff, checking several days of "daily digests"
from Sarfatti's yahoo group (in my yahoo email inbox). And, see you guys are
chronicling and discussing it here.

Pretty soon we will be able to clearly junk a lot of the rigidly adhered to "myths"
floating out there. Like MJ-12 maybe? Certainly alien/covert govt. treaties, no?
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby ryguy » Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:37 pm

MikeJamieson wrote:Pretty soon we will be able to clearly junk a lot of the rigidly adhered to "myths"
floating out there. Like MJ-12 maybe? Certainly alien/covert govt. treaties, no?


Hopefully yes...even better - once this crack opens up, we might get a glimpse of where all of those myths came from and why. We can certainly hope?

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:34 pm

ryguy wrote:
MikeJamieson wrote:Pretty soon we will be able to clearly junk a lot of the rigidly adhered to "myths"
floating out there. Like MJ-12 maybe? Certainly alien/covert govt. treaties, no?


Hopefully yes...even better - once this crack opens up, we might get a glimpse of where all of those myths came from and why. We can certainly hope?

-Ry


Myths. Who can say for sure? It's important not to cross the line into debunkery. These 'myths' are just another facet of the UFO dialectic- part of the entirety. The field must be studied in terms of the entire gestalt.

The truth may very well be that the universe, in itself, is a conscious entity. 'Ether' being the equivalent of 'blood.' If that is the case, then the particular consciousnesses (ie. 'us') are (Whiteheadian) abstractions. Perhaps it is the case that such abstractions stand between God and Entropy. It's a sobering thought. But it elevates Eisenhower's dentist to beyond high strangeness. God is subject to mood. In fact all of creation is nothing more than the mood of God. We are pearls, but ultimately a necklace. The basic substance of the universe- the ether- is Ethics. We tune into that reality at our peril. The enjoyment of the totality will switch us off in less than a heart-beat. Perpetuation of duality is our only hope for continued existence. Thus the dentist serves us- if that is our choice.

God created this shared paradigm out of loneliness. Dialectic requires a trinity- and that is the mood of God. Let's carry on- approaching but never achieving.

Never cast the pearls before the swine.

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby caryn » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:17 am

That’s a profound statement Toon! Must be to get me writing in the public forum.

This sentence: "God created this shared paradigm out of loneliness"

This sentence mirrors what was imparted to me during my ‘one on one’ with ‘G-d’ in 1978.....when it said ‘what is the point of existence if you have nothing to measure your existence by? – I was lonely!”

I don’t want to get into a heavy religious debate..just thought I’d share this snippet with you.
caryn
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: London

Postby ryguy » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:30 am

Some highlights from the battle....I've tried to filter much of the tit-for-tat arguing, but that's difficult. I've highlighted what some of the readers of the email thread have commented - many of these are names you will recognize. We consider them fellow travelers along these roads who understand the true methods involved in determining the veracity of claims. Follow along and let's see if we can figure out what's going on here...

------

Caryn makes a good point regarding where the fault should fall in this matter:

In all honesty I don’t for a moment believe Bob has deliberately committed plagiarism – or lied.

IMO, there is a marked difference between the ‘innocent’ repeating of bogus material and those knowingly placing bogus material in the hands of the not so overly critical (I’m being polite). The latter are the true perpetrators and should be held accountable, along with their counterparts – those knowingly promulgating bogus material to promote their own agendas.

In Bob’s defence, I believe he falls into the ‘innocent’ category. He certainly won’t thank me for saying that.

The appalling fact here and it certainly isn’t the first time, is the absence of Bob’s sources when the proverbial s*** hits the fan? Not once have any of them come forward (openly) in his defence. They dumb the crap on him then run, but he’ll defend them to his last breath. I hope there is such a thing as Divine Retribution! .....



Jack explains the current state of affairs:

Caryn Anscomb votes for Jack
Kit Green votes for Jack
Jerry Pippin votes for Jack
George Knapp votes for Jack

No one votes for Collins on this and no one will. I mean no one in their right mind.

Thanks George :-)

regarding my November 1996 Q-Ship article http://www.qedcorp.com/Q/Qship.html , though the technical points are difficult for the layman, bear in mind in comparing Collins's text with mine

1. I cite Modanese, Corso, Mitchell et-al properly under "fair use".

2. The points of contention have to do with the specific application of physics ideas to the UFO alien flying saucer problem that Modanese does not address in that 1996 paper of his that I cite. Indeed Modanese is writing a straight physics paper for a peer-reviewed journal in which any mention of UFOs means instant rejection. Only I can get away with stuff like that because I have a license 0.006999999 ... to be a "wacko," :-)

3. For Collins to insinuate that somehow Modanese a mild mannered Italian academic in Italy got a hold of the Angleton notes is ludicrous and preposterous.

4. For Collins to claim that I stole Boylan's words in an article http://www.drboylan.com/monolith2.html that Boylan is, in part, writing about me is also clearly idiotic.

With my fecund imagination and prolific writing talent I need not steal phrases from anyone, much less a man of no talent like Richard Boylan!

5. I never had access to Angleton's notes. Indeed, I have been trying to get them.


6. If we could ever find the actual e-mails between me, Collins, Angleton in complete untouched form - a lot more would become clear.

There is something important for national security, indeed for planetary security, behind all this smoke and warped mirror images in Clown Alley.


Followed with:

Is it Angleton? Is it Doty?
Who is Number One?


Collins responds....sort of:

Blend the words and Bingo it's Modanese and Boylan. Of course Modanese didn't write about UFOs, how silly for you to say that...Anybody can blend things together from several sources and quote the sources....Since I don't buy or read any books by Sarfatti it's difficult to plagiarized. .... Crean Levit, thanks for your comments, ...Rmc


Even Caryn has had enough of Robert's refusal to accept the facts:

For Christ sake man...take some advice for once in your life. You really can’t tell the difference between folk trying to screw you over and those trying to help you, worse, you see it in reverse.

Jack probably has grounds for a legal case should he opt for it – don’t push it. Take George’s advice and step down.


Jack considers the big picture...

The implication is that Angleton has fed Collins all this baloney. The plagiarism of my actual words and thoughts came from Jim Angleton Jr according to this information from Collins. This is consistent with Angleton getting in touch with me cordially in 2001. It would also mean that Angleton is also a patsy explaining why he got pissed at me when I tried to straighten him out on where the actual information came from. So Angleton is not Number One. Angleton is a cut-out. Who is behind Angleton?
Who is Number One?


Bob responds to Caryn:

Grow Up, I know my JOB. You don't. You got some kind of nerve telling me what my job is. I know where things came from. Sarfatti was NOT one of them. Grow Up...immature arrogance,.....Rmc


Jack responds to Caryn's statement that he has grounds for a legal case:

Sure I have grounds, but it's not worth it.
Collins is practically homeless living in some hell hole in the middle of s^~t's creek.
Strictly Trailer Trash.
He is not making any real money on the book.
It's not worth my time.
I simply wanted to set the record straight and help the poor fool.
It's my compassionate conservatism. ;-)

Collins is simply a shill, a patsy.
Collins is like Lee Harvey Oswald.
Collins is expendable.
His "sources" - we want Number One!
Angleton is the Patsy behind The Patsy.
Angleton is not Number One.


Colin Bennett, like Caryn, also realizes that Collins is becoming a scapegoat for Angleton's issue:

Please, stop this fight now. The point has been made. The poor guy is being kicked to death. I hate to see that happen to an old warrior. Collins has served his country well and has written a very interesting book, warts and all as Cromwell said. There is no need to humiliate and torture him any longer. Any more swords going in, and I will feel bound to come to the aid of a old comrade in arms who is alone and surrounded by enemies tearing him apart. I shall act on principle, not evidence. Now let him go to his corner lick his wounds and fight again. No more sadism, please. Kicking a fallen man is not heroic.

Colin Bennett
Author, London
The New Fortean Times
www.combat-diaries.co.uk


The conversations have gone into private email lists. Per Jack's agreement, anything sent to his Sarfatti yahoo group may be posted - I need to maintain the privacy of the private cc lists. However to summarize the current state of affairs - the general consensus seems to be that Collins' quote from his Angleton Jr source is most surely plagiarized, word for word, from Sarfatti's writing - as outlined by Caryn above and elaborated on by Jack in subsequent emails.

The major question at the moment is - why did Angleton Jr send Collins an alleged diary excerpt that was actually nothing more than the copied text of Sarfatti's writing? Why, when faced with this truth and the supporting evidence, does Collins continue to ignore the evidence?

The answers will obviously not come from Collins. Those in search of truth will need to work together to get to the bottom of this. This Angleton Jr. issue is important. And if anything is true - it is this....Jack is not a happy camper.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:15 am

Important New Update

Jack Sarfatti has announced that he will be making a statement of some startling news tomorrow:

I will have startling news tomorrow on the end of the current mystery - not good for Collins, not good at all, but a Triumph of Truth over Stupidity. Till then mum's the word.


Before this - it was more of the same today - lots of back and forth between Bob and Jack. Eventually the facts that have solidified are as follows:

- Jack's writings within the context of these excerpts, have been shown, due to his signature use of the term Q* and other issues regarding the physics involved that show beyond any doubt that this content was widely published by Jack Sarfatti circa 1998. First point in the timeline and very important.

- JJA (Jesse Angleton Jr.) sent the excerpts of his alleged grandfather's CIA notes to several people, allegedly four to six individuals starting in 2001. It was revealed to Jack's thread that Hal Puthoff and Boylan were two of these folks. Bob was obviously a third. The identities of the remaining individuals have not been revealed.

- Apparently much of the excerpts distributed by Angleton Jr. in 2001 to various individuals within ufology have also been copied from Jack's 1998 writings. Side by side samples have been posted to Jack's thread - the similarity is glaring and obvious.

This timeline - 1998 vs. 2001, first provided to Jack's thread by Caryn Anscomb and recognized as very significant by many on the email thread, is the smoking gun that shows Jack's writings appear to most likely be the original source of the text. In particular because of his unique use of Q* as described by Gary B. (Starstream Research). Gary is aware and has retained much of the history and physics involved here. He has supported Jack's stance in this exchange.

This thread will be updated tomorrow when Jack reports back with his startling news.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:41 pm

Thanks for this excellent work, Ryan!

CS
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby ryguy » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:57 pm

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry for the delay...fought the storm to get home and then needed to unbury the driveway...

Jack responded today to the list that he has contacted Angleton Jr. He's sent us, RU, a specific request which I can't elaborate on at the moment yet until Steve and I can discuss it and decide what to do.

What I can share at the moment is that nothing new has really been revealed. The story that Jack has been told is that JJA no longer has the original notes. Apparently they were stolen from a warehouse. JJA has convinced Jack that the plagiarized sections were done by "agents" and "journalists" who attended seminars, etc...where Jack had shared his ideas. Those notes made it into what was provided in the notes. That's the explanation and Jack accepts it. He is now working with JJA, apparently, and believes JJA is "on our side" - the side of truth and accurate disclosure.

More soon.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:17 am

ryguy wrote:Hi everyone,

I'm sorry for the delay...fought the storm to get home and then needed to unbury the driveway...

Jack responded today to the list that he has contacted Angleton Jr. He's sent us, RU, a specific request which I can't elaborate on at the moment yet until Steve and I can discuss it and decide what to do.

What I can share at the moment is that nothing new has really been revealed. The story that Jack has been told is that JJA no longer has the original notes. Apparently they were stolen from a warehouse. JJA has convinced Jack that the plagiarized sections were done by "agents" and "journalists" who attended seminars, etc...where Jack had shared his ideas. Those notes made it into what was provided in the notes. That's the explanation and Jack accepts it. He is now working with JJA, apparently, and believes JJA is "on our side" - the side of truth and accurate disclosure.

More soon.

-Ry
\

Jack responded today to the list that he has contacted Angleton Jr. He's sent us, RU, a specific request which I can't elaborate on at the moment yet until Steve and I can discuss it and decide what to do.


just release it. no elaboration required by you and steve. let's be truthful and transparent. we're grownups, afterall.

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron