From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Vallee--Rodeghier Response
Message-ID: <4563.2C458AFE@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 15 Jul 93 16:47:01 GMT
Sender: ufgate@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/428.0 - <ParaNet(sm) , Arvada CO



                AN OPEN LETTER TO MARK RODEGHIER

Mark Rodeghier                       San Fransisco. 11 July 1993.
Center for UFO Studies
2457 West Peterson Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60659

Dear Mark:

Your  detailed  and  informative  study  of  the  involvement  of
Battelle in UFO research (IUR vol.18 No.3, May-June 1993) gave me
a  mixture  of pleasant reactions and negative thoughts.   I  was
fascinated to learn what had happened to the people involved.   I
was  happy  to see that, contrary to others in ufology,  you  had
understood  that the document whose existence I had revealed  was
genuine  and  that it demonstrated that the Robertson  Panel  had
been manipulated.

It  is  impossible to respond in detail, because the  article  is
marred  by  snide remarks that detract from its  serious  intent.
There  would  be  much to say about the issue, and  it  could  be
summarized under four headings:

1.   Attempts  to  pass off Cross' request  for  massive,  secret
operations  (designed to calibrate witnesses) as mere  extensions
of   previous   ground  photography  projects  are   very   weak.
Indications do exist that actual simulations have been  conducted
since  1953, although it is true that Battelle may not have  been
involved.

2.  Equally weak is the argument that the Robertson panel did not
have  to be briefed on Cross' findings because, after  all,  "the
information belonged to the client."  While your remark would  be
entirely justified in the world of business, here we are  suposed
to  be dealing with Science with a capital "S", where such  games
are  not played.  There should be no such thing  as  "proprietary
science".   I think you misunderstand the reactions I had at  the
time (1967).  I was embarking on a career that would dedicate  my
life  to scientific research.  My disgust when I  discovered  the
letter  was  not caused so much by the minor details of  what  it
implied  or did not imply about ufology, but by what it meant  in
terms  of  the conduct of science.  I thought  it  was  perfectly
scandalous.   I still do, and I am amazed that you and Jenny  can
exonerate the agencies that condone this practice.

3.  Cross wrote about "what can and cannot be discussed" with Dr.
Robertson  and his illustrious colleagues.  His client  made  the
key decision, as you have verified, and only superficial findings
were  discussed.  You choose to accept the statement by  Battelle
staffers that what "could not be discussed" was not  significant.
I believe that other interpretations should be considered.

4.   The  Pentacle Memo has serious  implications  regarding  the
possible reality of pre-1953 UFO crashes.  The point was  brought
up  by Barry Greenwood in his own comments on the  Pentacle  Memo
("Just  Cause"  No.35,  March  1993):  Cross  does  not   mention
recovered  hardware  at  any point.  What  does  that  imply  for
Roswell?  Either it did not happen, in which case a great deal of
time  and  money  is being wasted by  investigators  combing  the
desert  for  traces of the material, or it did happen,  in  which
case  there  is  indeed  another  project  somewhere.   Have  you
considered  the possibility that some of Jenny  Zeidman's  former
collegues  simply  lied to you and her?  After all, if  they  can
withhold information from a panel of Nobel-class physicists  with
top  secret  clearances,  why  would they  spill  the  beans  for
ufologists?  "Just Cause" put its finger on the real problem when
it  wrote:  "why would the Air Force proceed  with  the  Battelle
study  in secret, withholding the critical evidence, and  try  ro
extract  patterns and flight characteristics from  what  Battelle
told  them  was a group of lousy reports?  Why  bother  when  the
Robertson panel did a negarive study for far less time and  money
than  Battelle,  and  the Battelle  study  proceeded  beyond  the
conclusion of the Robertson panel?  There is no sense to this  if
saucers  were  in our hands."  Thus the case  remains  very  much
open.

To summarize, your article may be read by many as a whitewash  of
Project  Stork's  role  in  what  constitutes  a  very  important
bifurcation  in  the history of UFO research.  You did  cast  new
light on the genesis and development of the Battelle project.  On
this  score I am in close agreement with Jenny and yourself:  the
Battelle  staff  did  a great job of research.   As  I  noted  in
"Forbidden Science", the letter is straightforward, well  thought
out;  the subsequent "Report 14" was a fine piece of  work  under
the  circumstances.   But  you  downplay  what  holds  the   most
interest,  namely the possible reality of another, larger  secret
project.   There was a reason for convening and manipulating  the
panel instead of simply letting Stork complete its job.   Control
of the UFO problem had changed hands: who was controlling it  and
why?   Who  is controlling it today?  The Pentacle  Memo,  in  my
view,  is a key historical document precisely because it lies  at
that  particular juncture where power changed hands.   Allen  did
not like to face this issue -- it compromised his own role -- and
he pushed it under the rug.

All  these points, and the relevant documents, need to  be  aired
and discussed freely.  Who knows what other facts might still  be
waiting to come to light?  The Pentacle Memo was not an  isolated
statement.   Its  meaning, and its relevance to the  field,  will
only be clarified fully when other documents from that era can be
dredged  up.   Unfortunately, as I mentioned above,  thes  needed
debate is made difficult by the tone of your article.

I  am getting used to snide remarks from CUFOS, but they  usually
do not come from your own pen.  Why did you find it necessary  to
include a throwaway statement like, "Jacobs is more knowledgeable
about the history of UFO study than Vallee"?  What am I  supposed
to answer to that?  Can't you leave it for future, more impartial
observers  to decide who deserves a medal?  Why turn what  should
be a serious debate into a pissing contest?

Another throwaway line that I found discouraging was your  remark
that anyone reading something sinister into the Pentacle Memo, as
I do, had to have a conspiratorial mind.  Coming as it does  from
a  group like CUFOS, which supports an abductee's statement  that
she was taken away in a flying saucer by Short Gray aliens  along
with  the Secretary General of the United Nations, such a  remark
is  curious.  You must admit that in the context of today's  wild
and  woolly  claims  and counter-claims,  my  own  conspiratorial
fantasies  are bland and innocuous indeed.  In the current  state
of  our collective ignorance it would seem prudent for  CUFOS  to
regard  its  colleagues' work with a little  more  consideration,
even when that work disturbs some old ideas.

          With best regards,
                             Jacques

                         Jacques Vallee
                  1550 California Street, No.6L
                    San Fransisco, CA. 94109

--  
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG




From: U35226@uicvm.uic.edu (Mark Rodeghier 413-3760)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Vallee--Rodeghier Response
Message-ID: <93197.141553U35226@uicvm.uic.edu>
Date: 16 Jul 93 19:15:53 GMT
References: <4563.2C458AFE@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
Lines: 19

I and my coauthor Jennie Zeidman will likely provide a more detailed
response (though there is really not much point).

However, I do have these immediate points to make:

1) Vallee gives no evidence to support this contentions, unlike our
   detailed comments and information in the article.
2) Vallee started the "pissing contest" against other ufologists long
   before anyone at CUFOS got involved, so I suggest he stop calling
   the kettle black.
3) If he has evidence that Battelle employees lied to us, provide it.
   If not, I would suggest our argument stands.

I still respect Vallee, but I have to say what I believe and have
come to understand through careful analysis.  I'm sorry that he
somehow finds that offensive.

Mark Rodeghier
CUFOS