Filename: Critique.Edi (Critique.Zip) Type : Editorial/Opinion Author : Omitted at the authors request Date : 09/23/92 Desc : Critique of the Phoenix Projects 1989FC document addressed to Steve Jones ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Preface: ------- Since I can not quickly verify the enclosed informational statements, times and dates, I will forgo that part of this critique, and focus on what is apparent and directly obvious from the body of the correspondence itself. Correspondence from Phoenix Project to Steve Jones -------------------------------------------------- Document I ---------- (1) "Privileged Information" a) This is nullified by the later reference in this communication where the "privileged information" is given the designation of "use at your own discretion." b) At this point, all information enclosed in the communication must be considered as public release, and declassified. It would not be within the nature of someone with a background in intelligence to header a communication as "Privileged" then go on to allow the public dissemination of said information. c) The "Privileged Information" header accomplishes three primary goals. a: Asserts an air of officialness where none should be asserted. b: Creates the idea that the information that follows is not easily obtained, or from classified sources. c: Becomes an ego boost for the recipient by having an important piece of "Privileged Information" personally addressed to them. (2) "From: Staff1, The Phoenix Project" a) Polarization around a singular, mysterious and/or inaccessible leadership. Only select individuals may be granted access to this person known only as Staff 1. b) Since the mysterious "Staff 1" person has taken the recipient into his confidence by making him privy to Privileged documentation, and thusly establishing the fact that the recipient can be trusted, why then is this mysterious leader still referring to himself as "Staff 1"? c) Psychological ego boost to have documentation addressed by the top authoritive figure of the group. (3) Paragraph inscribed as "Note:" a) "Thank you for meeting with our representatives." 1: Reaffirming the inaccessiblity of "Staff 1" 2: Reaffirming the authority and rank of "Staff 1" thereby putting the recipient in the subjective and subordinate posture. b) "Their evaluation of that contact was favorable." 1: Ego boost... Pat on the back... c) "You may use this data at your own discretion." 1: "Privileged information" now becomes declassified within the body of the privileged communication itself. That's simply not done. [..See (1) "Privileged Information"..] (4) Informational Section, Supposedly Gleaned from NASA. a) The way in which the information itself is headered is out of character for someone with a background in intelligence. Necessary informational categories have been left out, thus bring me to the conclusion that this was not written by someone in the intelligence field, or it was purposely omitted thus making the "Privileged Information" classification a "ploy", or "tease". (5) Personal Opinion/Critique a) This was obviously written by someone with absolutely no background or connection with any intelligence organization, be it military of civilian. b) The author has had intermediate training in psychology. Most probably from personal study, or some sort of assertiveness training, (include cultic control groups as a very distinct probability,) rather than mainstream academia. c) Though intimidation, and power ranking is a very real part of any intelligence operative's training, it is not directed in the manner found exhibited in this document with the exception of recon intelligence (expressly, NRO). The authors writing does not exhibit any of the traits that would shadow and an NRO agency operative. d) I feel that it is unnecessary to go through the entire document and critique each page, as this first section delivers a verdict on it's own. But I will mention that after reading this document in its entirety, I find that it is interjected with claims that cannot be supported by source verification as no source is given to various fantastic claims, and out and out fabrications. ie. Megellan's launch being delayed so that the computer could be reprogrammed. It is a well known fact to anyone that even lightly follows NASA projects, that Magellan's onboard computers can be easily prgrammed remotely whether on the ground, or in flight. e) Unnamed and unlisted sources, impossible and unsubstantiated claims fill this document. "Notes" added to AP news wire stories in specific places lead one to assume it is part of the AP wire story when indeed it is not. A very misleading game to those that may not be paying attention! (6) In Conclusion: A good portion of my notes and finding have been omitted from this correspondence for the sake of brevity. After doing a linguistic syntax, grammatical and psychological dissection of the document, as well as mulling it over in my mind for the past 24 hours, It is my preliminary personal belief that this person is potentially dangerous, having an extremely strong, and highly developed, deeply rooted power fixation. A control freak on the verge of megalomania, if you will. Of course I'm sure you would agree that a complete and more realistic prognosis can not really be authoritatively made by the dissection of one document. It would be necessary to meet, and spend a good deal of time with the author of the "Staff 1" document to actually verify or substantiate any of my opinions. Dr. (name omitted), Soc.D. Addendum... (Update: 9/25/92) I must apologize for the lack of greater detail in my above correspondence. After re-reading my critique, I realize that I should have carried over a bit more of my original findings in order to bring about the reasoning for my harsh statement concerning the person, known as "Staff 1." Perhaps at a later date, if it becomes necessary, I will elabortae in more detail. This rewiew is merely my personal opinion based on my current and past experiences, education, and familiarity with several agencies, their operatives and agents. It is in no-wise to be considered conclusive.