At 05:06 PM 5/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Dan, >Before we can "dialogue" much more, you'll have to clear up the little >misconception you've given me about your relationship with Dr. Pandolphi of >Photon Research Associates (& Company), as Ron says he's not in the least >interested in UFOs, and your and his discussions center on fishing and >technologies. There is little I can add to such a discussion, as my >environmental focus is primarily on "science and public policy," which is how >I even came to be discussing so-called 'UFOs' in the context of Scott Jones, >Linda Howe, Laurance Rockefeller and that ilk.
I'm not quite sure what misconception you are claiming here, but let me at least try to clear up something.
Ron has consistently told me also that he is not interested in UFO's. He has also said that since KG went a bit off the deep end, and may have been asked to leave, that the Co. no longer accepts volunteers for that sort of job. They would only want disinterested parties. Thus Ron is simply conforming to the job spec. No?
But then again, if you were to ask me what his real interests were, I would have to admit that my limited psychic abilities are not up to giving a definitive answer. Sorry! And like Mao once said, we should not be too concerned about the color of the cats. Maybe he takes pride in professionalism.
> I have my personal spiritual views, but frankly I am a bit offended at your >surprising but inept efforts to characterize these for whatever audience you >intend. Your most recent stuff was WAY off target...and way off base in terms >of the kinds of information and commentary I'm interested in sharing.
There might sometime be an audience, but I am talking to you. You claim to be a fellow seeker of truth. I believe that I have figured out some things that you have not. I would like to impart that to you for your consideration. To expedite that, it would be helpful for me to know where you presently are with the 'truth.' But if you insist, I can proceed without any such information, it would just take longer.
>None of >it matters, as I noted. It's not about you, me, Pandolphi, or any of the >other "personalities."
I happen to be a theist, which means that I believe in a personal God, which means that my God has a personality, which I believe is best represented by Jesus, among humans. In fact, I even lean toward thinking that Jesus is God, despite my other Trinitarian biases. So, yes, personalities do matter, to my way of thinking. This means that the Universe is all about individual people, just like you and me and Ron. We are not just ciphers in some cosmic machine, despite the fact that there do seem to be so many of us. Are you with me so far?
> As to your efforts to tease the Secret Service into making you some kind of >"UFOlogical Eschaton/Interface," you're on your own, buddy. I'm not sure >where or why you're going with all of that; the field of study I've been >following still heads to New Mexico and Holloman AFB, Kirtland, etc. To the >degree that kind of stuff is legitimate "secret technology" and doctrine, I >have absolutely NO interest in "busting the chops" of classified guys trying >to keep America free...if there IS still an America.
I am decidedly non-violent, but... the crucifixion shows that violence does sometimes play a role in even the most spiritual context.
> My focus, as noted to Pandolphi, remains on the historic fact of Project >Paperclip and the concurrent debates about where the "atomic power" and other >exotic German sciences ought to have been sited, circa 1945-1963.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. I have not seen your Paperclip theory laid out in detail or even succinctly summarised.
> When somebody gets into your kind of straits,
You might also give a succint summary of what you suppose my "straits" to be!
> Dan, I always try to suggest >that they "get a grip," or get a life...and in any event, "GET MORE FACTS." >You might want to start with the little article in the April 1997 issue of >"Military History," which is a little magazine available on your grocery >story shelf. Authored by a writer named Linda Hunt, the piece is titled: >"Project Paperclip, designed to give America's military a scientific >advantage, was at one crucial time run by a spy." > The piece exposes the sorry betrayal of the U. S. by Army Lt. Col. William >Henry Whalen, then JIOA (Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency), attached to >the Joint Chiefs of Staff. > These guys brought 1,600 German and Austrian scientists to the U. S. >between 1945 and 1970 under "Paperclip" and hundreds more under two similar >projects, "National Interest" and "63." Whalen was spying for the Soviets, >later was caught. > The little story by Linda Hunt dovetails nicely with the book that until >now has been perhaps the "definitive" report on the Paperclip programs, i.e., >"Project Paperclip: German Scientists and the Cold War," by Clarence G. >Lasby. Published in 1971 by Atheneum, Lasby's book omitted ANY references to >Whalen and the spying controversy. As with most "content analysis" kinds of >things, what else was missing has clued us in to "UFOlogy."
With your considerable output of writing, I do see a lot of trees, but I am not seeing a forest. This is probably due to either the dimness of my wit or to my not having read your things carefully enough. Could you please give me some help?!
> So Dan. You'll just have to follow the yellow brick road to Armageddon all >by your lonesome, uncontested by me fella. I've got work to do here. Besides, >the "senior weirdness" title has long been occupied by the folks working with >Uri Geller and then Phyllis Schlemmer, channelling "The Nine" for crowned >heads of Europe and uncrowned nincompoops in the U. S., also. That's the "big >dollar" UFOlogical gambit.
OK, and what does this have to do with you, me and Ron?
> Steve Greer is but a tip of their iceberg, Dan. If you have any competitors >for "Saucerian Eschaton," that'd be Steve & Co. I see from Rich Boylan's >stuff that those folks are still making noises about gigantic revelations. >I'll watch it on CNN like the rest of Americans, Dan. Whitley, Budd and the >rest are pawns & tailchasers. > For me, "Revelations" isn't the END of the book...it's only the beginning. >But it isn't about ending the mundane boredom and responsibility of everyday >life, Dan.
You keep telling us what things are not. But what are they? Do you know? Do you have a guess? Does anybody know?
> Have a nice day. Stay loose. >Oh, yes. Paul Revere? My hero, indeed. But so is Jefferson, T. and Lee, >Robert E. >Just simple Virginia guys, trying to do the best with what they'd been given, >eh? >Adios, my friend. Be well. Live long and prosper. >Bye, >Dick