SUBJECT: WHO'S DISINFORMING WHOM ? FILE: UFO2535
PART 2
* Originally by Don Allen
* Originally dated 31 Aug 1993, 0:36
Dear Folks,
What follows is Bruce Maccabee's rebuttal to the recently posted AIR #1 Report
put out by the 'Associated Investigators Group'. In addition, are two letters,
one by Richard Hall, the current chairman of the Fund For UFO Research (FUFOR)
and one by Bill Moore, that are also rebuttals to the AIR report.
Bruce Maccabee's letter contained extensive use of italics. These italics have
been denoted within brackets [..] . I also took the liberty of correcting small
typo errors that appeared in the original. Nothing major, and it doesn't affect
the content.
===========================================================================
Aug 9, 1993
Dear Ufologist,
You have recently received a copy of the Associated Investigator's Report
(AIR) #1, "published" by the Associated Investigators Group (AIG). This report
was mailed directly to over 100 people known to be interested in UFO research,
although, it was not mailed to me nor to many of the other "attackees"
discussed in the paper. The initial recipients subsequently mailed copies to
others. If you mailed copies to friends, please also send each one a copy of
this response.
A major part of the AIR report is concerned with my "secret" association
with the CIA. Other portions of the paper makes generally disparaging remarks
about me and several other noted UFO researchers..
AIR #1 raises the question of whether or not my association with the CIA
impacted on my UFO investigations or on the activities of the Fund for UFO
Research. I can assure that that it did not, as is more fully described in the
enclosed paper. I feel no need to 'defend' my CIA association, inasmuch as it
is not based on UFO research, but rather on professional activities related to
my work for the Navy, which is totally unrelated to UFO research. I have
written this paper to clarify my association with the CIA and also for another
reason which is probably of more importance to ufologists who may be recipients
of further AIG reports.
The claim made in the AIR #1 (see the last page) that there are no errors in
the paper and this is followed by the "promise" (or is it a threat?) of more
"good" research to follow. In other words the writer of AIR #1 claims for
himself, and for the Associated Investigators Group, godlike accuracy. This
sort of accuracy would, indeed be reassuring, if it were true, especially in
light of the AIR's which are promised on crashed saucers, mind control, CIA
projects, etc.
However, I have discovered numerous errors in the paper. Therefore I feel it
is my duty to inform the ufo community that this paper is not as accurate as
one might hope. Furthermore, along with the errors is an overabundance of
innuendo and false logic. Hence I must caution the readers of this and future
papers against blind acceptance of what the AIR reports say. I'm afraid that if
this paper is any example, then we must be prepared for a lot of hot AIR.
One more thing. The "ghost writer" of this paper is one Walter Todd Zechel
who was an important figure in UFO research about 15 years ago. His approach to
the UFO subject was to do anything which would advance his agenda, even at the
expense and I mean $$$, of other people. I know a number of people who suffered
economic loss as a result of WTZ's irresponsibility.
Bruce Maccabee
Hot A.I.R
or
The Mark of Zechel
by
Bruce Maccabee
(not anonymous)
(Special message: I have plenty of case investigations and analyses to keep me
busy. I don't need this crap, which forces me to use my precious time
responding to worthless charges.)
"As you well know, there are a lot of people out there with particular axes
to grind or pet cases or theories to spread around. Some of these people would
like nothing more than to drag you down into the mud with them. I fervently
hope that you will continue to operate with the same brilliance and astute
logic and objectivity I've always admired in you. Please continue to demand
evidence and proof, and demand as much of them as you would me."
(from a letter to Bruce Maccabee by Walter Todd Zechel, June 21, 1986)
The UFO community has recently been "rocked" by an unpublished but widely
circulated paper entitled Associated Investigators Report #1 (abbrev. AIR)
which reveals, "for the first time anywhere," my [secret] association with the
CIA. It also levels charges of incompetence and/or outright fraud against
several other UFO investigators. After reading this report the intelligent
reader will, I'm sure, be somewhat puzzled. Why was it done? By whom? Was I
really a CIA mole inside the UFO community? What is the Associated
Investigators Group? Who wrote the report? Is it as accurate as it claims? Is
there a "hidden agenda" for this paper? Or is this report really just a lot of
[hot] AIR?
The Associated Investigators Group members are not named, although 14
pseudonyms are given at the end of the paper. Even the writer of the paper is
not named. In an "appendix" following the main text there is the following
statement: "For the most part, this report is based upon interviews or
discussion with the subjects named herein, and have been stated as accurately,
candidly and forthrightly as possible. If there are any errors, which is
unlikely, they are probably the result of misinterpretations by the subjects."
(Subjects? Is this an experiment?) Clearly the writer assigns godlike accuracy
to him (her) self and to the AIG. This would be reassuring, [if it were true] .
The writer then advises readers to "not waste your time and energy attempting
to impede our investigations by attempting to guess our identities..."
CAVEAT EMPTOR! Although gullible readers will probably fall for this crap,
the astute reader will suspect any investigative writing which proclaims
perfection! (The astute reader will also note one error immediately: "pellican"
is not the correct spelling.) The reader should also be wary of any writing by
people who (a) don't have the intestinal fortitude (read "guts") to identify
themselves as they accuse others and (b) have the gall to advise the readers
not to try and identify them. One wonders what these "stealth investigators"
have to hide. Could a similar paper be done about them?
Finally, there is also a promise of more of this "good" research to follow
and [that is the reason for this paper]. Although there is no need for me to
defend my association with the CIA, since it is based on continuing
professional activities related to my job as a Navy physicist, I feel that I
must alert UFOlogists to the evidence of poor research, use of inference and
innuendo, errors of fact and just plain mudslinging in this paper so that
readers will be better able to [judge the level of accuracy of any future hot
AIR] reports. On the other hand, the promise of future investigative reports
may also be just hot air.)
SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME AND MY RESPONSE
The perceptive reader will, of course, immediately realize that, had my
association with the CIA really been totally secret, the paper would not have
been written because [no one would have known about it].
The writer essentially poses a legitimate question (which other people have
asked me already), namely, what has been the nature of my association with the
CIA and has it impacted on my UFO research and my activities in the field.
Unfortunately, however, the writer, goes on to argue, via innuendo and false
logic, that my association with the CIA has been poor judgement on my part, at
best, and, at worst, has negatively impacted the UFO field in two ways which
are treated separately below. In the following paragraphs I will answer the
legitimate questions. I will also identify the false logic and innuendo and
respond to it in a manner that rational people will understand.
ACCUSATION # 1: The writer charges that my support for UFO cases which, in the
mind of the writer at least, are "obviously" poor cases or frauds (New Zealand,
Kirtland Landing Case, Gulf Breeze, Guardian) has caused other researchers to
waste time and money carrying out their own investigatlons. (How horrible!) But
more germane to the issue which is the subject of this paper, my CIA
asociation, is the writer's allegation that my support for these cases has been
"CIA inspired." According to the writer, "This certainly would have served the
CIA's interest in keeping serious investigation of the UFO phenomena out of the
public domain." Also, according to the writer my support of these cases is
evidence for poor judgement on my part, and no one with such poor judgement
should be a leader in the UFO field (after all...I might lead people astray!)
(I guess the writer does not think much of the average ufologist's ability to
discern fact from fiction in UFO investigation.)
RESPONSE: The writer implies, without evidence, that a general policy of the
CIA, the "CIA's interest," is to suppress serious UFO investigation. That
implication runs counter my impression gained over the last nine years or so
which is that, at least the part of the CIA with which I have had contact, [has
no policy or "interest" regarding UFO investigation], although several
employees have expressed an interest and numerous employees have attended the
several UFO lectures (the term 'briefings' is too formal) I have presented
there. The writer alleges that my support for these cases has been "CIA
inspired." WRONG! The fact is that the my CIA acquaintances have never
indicated that I should support any particular sighting. In fact, the comments
they make tend to be skeptical or just plain negative regarding sightings and
[the reality of UFO phenomena in general]. My support for these cases has
nothing to do with the CIA and has everything to do with my own investigations
of them. The astute reader will realize that the opinions of these cases
offered by the writer are just that...opinions, unsupported by any evidence in
the hot AIR report. If the writer or any of the AIG group are intelligent
enough to have good arguments against these cases then they can send me their
arguments directly or even argue in public if they want to.
The writer accuses me of poor judgement in supporting these cases. It's hard
to defend oneself against accusations of "poor judgement." It is like being
accused of "poor taste." People will have differing opinions about the same
subject. Which person is correct? It becomes more a matter of consensus than
establishable fact. At any rate, I will stand by my past investigations and
publications. I have rejected many alledged UFO sightings, but the particular
ones held in disfavor by the hot AIR writer are cases I did not reject for
reasons which I considered to be very good at the time and I still consider
them to be good. If others wish to disagree publicly with my conclusions they
should be willing to state their argument(s) ["nonymously"] as opposed to ["a-
nonymously."]
On the other hand, these charges of poor judgement can be reversed. I
suspect that the AIG members, should they ever reveal themselves, will be
charged with poor judgement for having circulated this paper widely in spite of
the numerous errors, [ad hominem] attacks and argument by illogic and innuendo
(see below). They will also be charged with "unkind conduct" for [not even
having the courtesy to send me a copy first, although I am the main target of
their attacks!] I first learned that the paper existed during the late evening
of July 24 when Jim Moseley called me to ask me questions about it's
allegations. Over the next week I heard from other people who had received
copies. I learned that it had even appeared in England during the weekend of
July 24. But, oddly enough, of the "subjects" I talked to, [none of them had
received copies directly from the AIG.] I finally got a copy 6 days after this
"load" had been dropped on an unsuspecting world from a person who had received
his copy from the AIG in an envelope with no return address.
Why was this report circulated widely before I got a copy? I presume it was
circulated by the [perpetrators] of this [travesty] in order to spread their
[lies and innuendo] as far as possible before I (and the others mentioned
herein) could respond. Furthermore, by not listing a return address or the name
of a real person to contact there is no "official" person to whom I can send my
response. I, therefore, must respond to the community in general.
ACCUSATION #2: The writer claims that the second negative impact of my
association with the CIA has been its effect on the policy of the Fund for UFO
Research. In particular, the writer suggests that my association with the CIA
affected the decision of the Fund to reject a proposal by Walter Todd Zechel
(WTZ) to sue the CIA a second time. The writer further charges that my CIA
association also caused the Fund to support MJ-12 research in spite of
"knowing" that the MJ-12 papers are fakes.
RESPONSE: WRONG and WRONG AGAIN! One fact that the writer has failed to take
into account ("don't bother me with the facts, this is what I want to say") is
that I did not "run" the Fund like an autocracy. I had one vote on the
Executive Committee of five people and each action required at least 3 out of 5
positive votes. My suggestions were voted down a number of times.
In order to support his argument that my association with the CIA impacted
on the Fund decision to reject MJ-12's proposal the writer has resorted to
incomplete reporting and biasing of the facts. I present my version of the
story of this particular incident below. Before beginning, however, I would
like to point out that most of the information used in the AIG was supplied by
WTZ. I know this because much of the information which is in the report I
supplied to him, alone. The report also contains information which he, alone,
told me (and which I didn't tell others...I kept his confidence, but obviously
he didn't return the favor!). In fact, the whole paper bears the [Mark of
Zechel]. This leads me to speculate that WTZ's intent is to use this paper to
get me off the Executive Committee of the Fund. With me not on the Executive
Committee he could once again propose to re-sue the CIA without having to worry
about my presumed interference or alerting of CIA officials (which I didn't do
the first time and wouldn't have done at any time!). If that is true, then WTZ
may be surprised to learn that I had, in fact, stepped down in favor of Richard
Hall at the end of March, 1993, [months before there was any hint of the AIG
paper]. I am now, after 13 years of continual "duty" with the Fund, Chairman
Emeritus, with all the privileges that title bestows (none!). (My "golden
parachute" leaves a lot to be desired.)
Now let's get to the core of the matter, the rejection of WTZ's proposal to
re-sue the CIA and the subsequent funding of Stan Friedman's MJ-12 research,
the pertinent portion of the hot AIR paper page 8, last paragraph) reads as
follows (I have labelled the abstractions from the paper with numbers for later
reference):
(1) "It must be pointed out that the Fund rejected a detailed proposal to
re-sue the CIA under FOIA submitted by Todd Zeche1 a few years ago. Zechel had
outlined a plan to go after [the 15,000 documents described by Maccabee's
friend, Kit Green], and had asked for a [paltry $500] to get the effort
rolling, using a diligent attorney who had volunteered to do the work. The Fund
quickly rejected Zechel's proposal, but later handed $16000 to Stan Friedman in
an effort to validate the MJ-12 documents." (my emphasis)
(2) "Unfortunately, we are forced now to re-examine the motives of Dr.
Maccabee. We must ask if his CIA contacts had any input into this (or any)
decisions regarding proposals. This input may not have been so obvious as one
would first think. Consider the scenario wherein Maccabee's CIA contacts
express subtle hints suggesting to Maccabee that there may have been an MJ-12,
this may have been enough to influence his decision to make such a large grant.
Conversly, who knows what input the CIA had in Maccabee's rejection of Zechel's
modest proposal."
I would like to answer the last implied question immediately: [the CIA had
exactly no input to the rejection of WTZ's proposal, nor did it have any input
to any of the decisions of the Fund For UFO Research. Period!] Of course the
writer, and WTZ, could have learned this (whether or not they believed it) by
just asking. But their approach is more consistent with that of paranoid
delusionals who have fun speculating about being "under constant attack by dark
forces" (in this case, the CIA) and don't like to ask direct questions and
receive direct answers because they don't believe the answers. Furthermore, as
I pointed out above, even it I had attempted to interject a "CIA perspective"
into the internal deliberations of the Fund - [which I never did], the other
members could equally well argue from their own perspectives. And when it came
to the final "showdown", I had only a single vote. But, again, this logic is
irrelevant according to the writer whose attitude is "don't bother me with
logic or the facts; I like my own conclusions."
Referring, now, to section (1) of the paragraph above, why did the Fund
reject WTZ's? proposal? The very short answer is that it was at the wrong time
and by the wrong person. More specifically, there are four basic reasons. Three
of these are WTZ's own fault, and one was "bad timing." To understand these
reasons the reader needs to know some history that is not generally available
(see CLEAR INTENT by Greenwood and Fawcett for more information on the CIA
lawsuit).
The original 1977-1978 CIA lawsuit was prosecuted under the rights granted
by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIPA...sometimes abbreviated
FOI). The suit was filed on the behalf of a UFO group, now defunct, called
Ground Saucer Watch (GSW). The success of the suit came about largely as a
result of WTZ's own effort in conjunction with New York attorney Peter Gersten
and with considerable help from Brad Sparks. The lawsult was carried through to
a surprising (to most of the world) conclusion: in December 1978 the CIA
released [hundreds] of pages of UFO related material spanning some 30 years
after claiming for months that it was involved for only a short time in late
1952 and early 1953 (the time leading up to the Robertson panel fiasco and the
subsequent panel report which proposed "debunking" as the solution to the UFO
problem). The fact that the CIA had lots of pages of material was not
surprising to WTZ and others involved in the suit, however, because they had
been "led to believe by the CIA's legal staff that the number of documents to
be accounted for would be in the area of 10,000." (quote taken from the draft
of "For Your Eyes Only," a paper written in January, 1987, by WTZ). (Years
earlier, in the January 1979 bulletin of the Citizens Against UFO Secrecy,
"Just CAUS," WTZ wrote that in September, 1978, "U.S. Attorney William Briggs
led CAUS officials to believe that the CIA had located in excess of 5,000
documents. Evidently somehow over the years this number was doubled.)
Furthermore, according to WTZ in his proposal to the Fund, a "reliable CIA
source of mine" pointed out that most of the "components" the CIA which were
searched were the wrong ones. Hence, presumably there could be unreleased
documents in other components of the agency.
The release of a mere 900 pages dismayed WTZ and the others and they began
planning, [in the spring of 1979], for another lawsuit. (This planning was
going on when I met a CIA employee who suggested that there could be many more
pages of material. Although this incident plays a large role in the AIR
reconstruction of the events, [it played no role] in the Fund decision. My
contact with the CIA is discussed more fully below.) However, for various
reasons there was no second suit of the CIA in 1979 and WTZ subsequently
dropped out of UFO research leaving a trail of unpaid bills and a "few pissed
off people in my wake" (quote from his proposal).
Move ahead, now to December, 1986 (not exactly "a few years ago," as implied
by the hot AIR paper). The Fund received a proposal from WTZ to re-sue the CIA
for the presumed thousands of documents that hadn't been released. The
Executive Committee of the Fund reviewed his proposal and made its decision
based on the following factors:
(a) WTZ did not present a strong case that more pages would be released under a
new FOI lawsuit. First his "evidence" that there were more documents was
largely speculation based on hearsay or on information from confidential
sources about which he would say nothing. In other words, he provided no
[proof] that there were thousands more pages to be released. (In fact, one goal
of the suit was a search to find out if there were more more documents.)
Second, the previous suit had been successful only in retrieving documents of
Secret classification and below. Both the CIA and later NSA (National Security
Agency) lawsuits showed that the government could appeal to "national security"
to withhold documents. There was no reason to believe that the same excuses
wouldn't be used again to protect the "really good stuff" we wanted. In other
words, they might locate some more, even many more, documents and simply refuse
to release them all or in part for national security reasons. Hence the
Executive Committee did not see much hope that a new lawsuit would produce
hundreds or thousands, or [any], more documents than we already had.
(b) Had this proposal been sent by someone else we might have been more
favorably disposed toward it. Although proposals to the Fund are evaluated more
in terms of the capability of an investigator than his personality and personal
history, in this case we could not overlook WTZ's actions in the past. Although
he had established himself as a good, persistent investigator of UFO crashes
and government cover-up, his meteoric rise (1976-77) and fall (late 1979) was
well known to all of us. As he admitted in his proposal, his complete obsession
with uncovering the cover-up overpowered his good sense in dealing with other
investigators. When he left the field, some might say "drummed out," he owed
money for phone investigations he had carried out at other people's expense. He
had, to use his phrase in the proposal, "left a few pissed off people in my
wake" when he vanished from the scene in late 1979, having been "burned out."
The Executive Committee felt that the Fund would be condemned by many or most
other researchers if it supported Mr. WTZ in [any] activity.
(c) WTZ shot himself in the foot by indicating that big money - that's BIG
money - was soon to follow. He wrote in his proposal that he was authoring two
books, one of which would be a hardcover with a "six figure advance...currently
being negotiated." There would also be a feature film budgeted at another six
figure number. He was expecting to submit part of the book to a publisher in 3
months. The Executive Committee members read this and asked, "if there are
megabucks only a few months away, why does he need us?"
(d) The fourth and final "killer" reason was bad timing. Perhaps WTZ, not being
active in the field, did not know that in 1985 the Fund had volunteered to put
on the "Fortieth Birthday Party" in the Nation's Capitol. I refer to June 24,
1987 as the 40th anniversary of Arnold's sighting, and the party was the
International MUFON Symposium. The Executive Committee had decided to make this
as international as possible by inviting researchers from all over the world.
We knew that this would take money...more than we could take in "at the door"
from the attendees alone. By the fall of 1986 we were activitely searching for
donations (and beginning to chew our fingernails). We expected to have to raise
some $15,000 or more in donations [beyond] the expected registration fees. By
December, 1986, when we received WTZ's proposal, we had not yet achieved our
goal...[although we had already committed to a number of speakers from
overseas]. Our collective finger nails were getting shorter.
It was in this context that we evaluated WlZ's proposal to re-sue the CIA
for a "paltry 500 to get the effort rolling," as it says in the AIR. WRONG! Had
it [only] been $500, and if it had been someone other than WTZ, we just [might]
have been interested. However, it wasn't just $500. The suit would have
required an "initial contribution of $500 to cover basic expenses in preparing
the suit" and "once the suit was ready to file...[an additional contribution of
about $2,000 as a retainer for the attorney(s)"] (from WTZ's proposal). There
was no mention of a "diligent attorney who had volunteered to do the legal
work." Since WTZ's time scale was measured in months, we could see that the
$500 right up front would be followed soon by another $2,000, for a total of
$2,500 [that would be needed during the spring/summer of 1987 for his lawsuit].
Since we were trying to save every penny toward the MUFON Symposium, still 6
months away, [we weren't about to commit to anything until we had paid for the
symposium]. In other words, we had our own problems with money. Now reread
reason (c) above. The Executive Committee members wondered why he needed a
"paltry" $2,500 from us when, it he waited a few months, he would be [rolling
in dough]. (Note: evidently his book and movie proposals also fell through.)
As you may well imagine, the combination of these reasons was enough to
cause the Executive Committee vote against the proposal. My "CIA connection"
(reference section (2) above) had nothing to do with the rejection. In fact, I
never discussed his proposal [or any other proposal] with my CIA contacts.
Furthermore, I had no "protective feelings" for the CIA...and I still don't. I
still think they're holding onto something we want and if someone should
propose another lawsuit, then have at it!
So now you see that the version of this "rejection incident" as reported in
the AIR, where any errors are "unlikely," is a lot of hot air...just as their
claim to investigatorial perfection!
The Fund's decision not to fund the CIA lawsuit apparently did not sit well
with WTZ. In the draft of his last issue of "For Your Eyes Only" written in
January, 1987 he refers to his offer to "launch a new suit against the CIA,
this time seeking the 15,000 documents that were never scattered throughout the
CIA's files as it contended, but were instead held in one location, as would be
expected if UFOs are considered a serious intelligence target. But it appears
UFOlogists are more concerned with [holding conventions] where everyone can
propose their latest theories and wallow in the comradery of fellow believers,
than they are to get down in the trenches and slug it out with those
responsible for making UFOs a laughing matter and relegating the subject to the
science fiction section." (my emphasis) As the reader will note, this
disparaging reference to "holding conventions" is a low blow; the Fund was
already committed to holding a convention. We didn't have the money to do both,
and we couldn't arbitrarily cancel the convention to support WTZ's speculative
proposal.
Referring, now, to paragraph (1) above and the research into the MJ-12
documents, the hot AIR paper says that the Fund "quickly rejected Zechel's
proposal, but later handed $16,000 to Friedman.." It does not point out that
Friedman received support for MJ-12 research [2 1/2 years later], under
conditions that were considerably different from the conditions under which
WTZ's proposal was rejected. The MJ-12 papers, more precisely referred to as
the "Eisenhower Briefing Document," (EIB) were released in the late spring of
1987, just before the 1987 Symposium. Charges and countercharges began flying
around immediately and continued into 1988. In the summer of 1988 the Fund took
a poll of contributers to determine what interested them the most. MJ-12 came
out on top. The Fund then made a public appeal for a $16,000 proposal by Stan
Friedman to try to prove or disprove the validity of the document. We all knew
it was a shot in the dark, but only by dilligent searching of old records could
we hope to learn anything. Everyone who contributed to the special MJ-12 effort
knew exactly what the money was going for. The Fund did not use general funds
over which the community had no control.
Referring to paragraph (2), above, the writer questions whether or not my
"CIA contacts had any input to this" and suggests that they may have hinted the
MJ-12 documents were real, thus influencing me to "make such a large grant." As
I have stated above, however, the CIA contacts never advised me one way or the
other and never influenced the Fund decisions one way or another. I'll go
farther to say that they never hinted that the MJ-12 documents were real. They
were as puzzled and skeptical as everyone.
The writer has alledged that I supported MJ-12 research while knowing that
the EIB was a fake. WRONG! I [still] don't know whether it is fake or not, or
whether it might be partially true and partially false. Numerous investigators
have provided circumstantial evidence on both sides of the question. Many of
the "conclusive" arguments against the document have been shown to be ill
conceived. Yet we have yet to find conclusive proof of its reality.
MORE HOT AIR
Having discussed...and dispensed with...the two major allegations of this
paper I will now deal with the other allegations. This is done in the Appendix
on an item-specific basis. My discussion of the various items listed there
illustrates the errors in this paper. Without trying to analyze each slanted
word and sentence, and continuing most of my discussion to events, etc., which
are directly connected to me or which I know about, I have found 19 errors of
fact, illogic or innuendo in the self-proclaimed "perfect" paper. One person I
spoke to about this paper pointed out that whenever he gets something like
this, loaded with [ad hominem] attacks and verging on libel and slander, he
automatically assumes that maybe 50% is completely false, 50% is basically
true, and that the true 50% is written in such a way as to make it look bad for
whomever the paper is about. I guess that person hit the nail on the head this
time.
But what is important now is not this widely circulated paper. The "cat is
now out of the bag" regarding my "CIA association" and from now on I'll
probably be be viewed with suspicion by the more paranoid members of the UFO
community. The important question for the UFO community is how to view the next
AIR paper which may report on items for which there are no independent checks.
As this paper shows, the AIG members are not infallible (far from it!). Hence
readers of any such reports should be prepared to view very skeptically any
further hot AIR reports.
(P.S. Now re-read the abstract from WTZ's letter to me in 1986 at the beginning
of this paper.)
APPENDIX
To avoid having to virtually retype the AIR, I refer to the items of
interest by listing the page, paragraph and line which contains specific words
of interest and these words are [italicized]. The reader is invited to use the
AIR as a reference for the context of the items and to keep track of the number
of factual errors and inferences presented as fact in order to better assess
the claim that any such errors are "unlikely." Errors are expressly designated
as ERROR followed by a # sign.
ITEM 1 - pg 1, para. 1, sentence 1: "long standing [secret] relationship
with the CIA and U.S. Intelligence community." Although my first contact with
the CIA was UFO related (see below), my contacts since 1984 have been as a
result of my Navy work. Although I have not publicized this information, WTZ
knew, as did the members of the Fund and various other members of the UFO
community. Hence it has not been a real "secret." If it were, this paper
wouldn't have been written because no one would have known.
ITEM 2 - pg.1, para. 1, sent. 1: "[briefing them about various UFO matters
and Investigators]." I have discussed UFO matters with several employees who
have expressed an interest in UFOs and have provided them with my opinions on
various cases and people [just as I would with any other persons interested in
the subject including other ufologists, newsmedia reporters, etc]. The use of
the term "briefings" is too formal. Casual discussions or, for groups of
people, informal lunchtime lectures would be more appropriate. The CIA invites
people with many different interests to provide entertainment lectures for the
employees. (I once heard Tom Clancy speak there.)
ITEM 3 - pg.1, para. 9, sent. 2: "At the same time and for undisclosed
reasons, Maccabee briefed the CIA men on the CIA's own UFO files released under
the Freedom of Information Act." After the 1987 MUFON Symposium in Washington,
D.C., where the MJ-12 papers were discussed publicly for the first time Ron
Pandolfi invited me to give a general lecture to employees on UFOs and MJ-12. I
took the opportunity to inform the CIA men and [women], which included
employees of all "ranks" including secretaries, about "their own documents"
because (hold your breath....here is the formerly [undisclosed reason]) I
wanted them to know what their own employer had been doing. I also wanted to
see what the response would be. After all, CIA documents would, presumably,
have some considerable level of credibility so I tried to make the case for
UFOs based largely on those documents. After that I discussed the MJ-12 papers
in the context of having built a case for UFO reality using the CIA documents.
I learned later what the response was: many of the listeners became interested
in the subject and started snooping around in whatever files they had access
to. Ron said that I created a lot of "spies" in the agency. However, I have no
evidence that anyone found anything not already contained ln the FOIPA document
package.
ITEM 4: pg.1, para. 5 sent. 1: "Maccabee first [approached] the CIA in early
1979..." (after visiting New Zealand as part of my investigatlon of the world
famous New Zealand Sightings of December, 1978). WRONG! Actually, I never
[approached] the CIA. The CIA contact was made, [not at my request], by a
scientist who worked for the MITRE corporation. (See below) ERROR #1
ITEM 5: pg.1, para. 5, sent. 2: "...Maccabee, for [unclear reasons] decided
the film represented some sort of probative evidence of UFOs and [set out to
bring it to the attention of CIA officials]." WRONG! I [never] "set out to
bring it to the attention of CIA officials." My reasons for viewing the New
Zealand sightings as valid evidence may be unclear to the writer, who has
probably never studied them (and quite possibly [couldn't understand the
technical arguments even if he did!]), but they are clear to numerous other
people who have heard the lectures I have given and read the published papers,
including papers in [Applied Optics], a technical journal. The claim that I
[set out] to inform the CIA couldn't be [farther] from the truth. Informing the
CIA had never even crossed my mind. After all, the CIA was the "bad guys" who
had just two months before, been caught with their pants down when they
released hundreds of pages of material. ERROR #2
ITEM 6: pg. 1, para. 5 sent. 3: "He then [put out feelers through his
contacts with companies performing tasks for the CIA]..." WRONG! The way this
is presented the reader might assume that the writer (or WTZ) has some
evidence, as, for example, by checking with companies that perform tasks for
the CIA. However, this is a (one of many!) false impression created by the
writer. I never contacted any companies. What I did was tell Jack Acuff,
Director of NICAP at the time, that I would like to speak to experts in the
field of radar. He, in turn, put me in contact with a scientist, Dr. Gordon
MacDonald, at the MITRE corporation. I was invited to discuss the NZ sightings
with him and several other scientists at MITRE in McLean, Va. and I did (and
they generally agreed with my conclusions). Then, a week or so later, I learned
that MacDonald had contacted a man at the CIA who contacted me and offered to
provide technical consultation if I would provide a [briefing] to some CIA
employees. At first I was leery of doing anything with the CIA, but I knew they
had radar experts, so I stipulated that if they would give me some feedback I'd
tell them what I know. So I briefed them and I received some helpful comments.
There were some minor criticisms but no strong disagreements with my analysis.
(I had concluded, by the way, that in certain instances there were correlated
radar-visual observations of unidentified objects.) ERROR #3.
ITEM 7: pg. 1 para. 7 and pages 2 and 3. This presents the hot AIR version
of my interaction with a CIA employee and his [supposed] statement that there
were "15,000 UFO-related documents." The actual history is as follows:
After I discussed the NZ case one employee, Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green
(KG), invited me to visit the CIA again a week or so later to have a general
UFO discussion with him and a couple of other employees. It was at this time,
during a discussion of the CIA lawsuit, that he made a general comment that
there [could] be more pages because he knew, from the compartmented
organization of the agency, that other parts of the agency could have
information of which he would not be aware, even though he thought he was the
"custodian" of the UFO files. In other words, [he knew that he would be unaware
of any UFO files that might be possessed by "custodians" in other components of
the Agency]. This all happened in late March and early April, 1979. I knew that
WTZ and Peter Gersten were interested in going after more agency documents, so,
about a month later I revealed my "secret" meeting and KG's comment that there
might be more, perhaps 15,000 more, pages. This I did to support his WTZ's
effort. I don't remember exactly what I said, but, since WTZ recorded my
conversation (without telling me) he can perhaps supply me with a transcript.
Whatever I said, it is clear that WTZ interpreted it as meaning that KG had
said there [were] 15,000 UFO-related documents. Almost immediately WTZ wanted
to know if I would reveal the contact's name, which I didn't. Then he wanted me
to find out if the contact would be willing to testify to the existence of 15,
000 more pages. I called KG and he made it clear that he didn't [know] that
there were thousands more pages. He could only testify to what had been in his
own file, which he had given to the FOIPA coordinator, a thousand pages or so.
All else was speculation. When I told this to WTZ and Gersten they appeared to
get angry and wanted to sue [me] for covering up information. I managed to
convince Gersten that I didn't know anything and that I couldn't force KG to
make any statements that he didn't want to make. That ended the situation.
ITEM 8: Pg. 2, para. 7: "It was clear from Maccabee's statements to Zechel
that Maccabee intended to cooperate with the CIA on a continuing basis..."
WRONG! I didn't reveal KG's name because I felt it was not my perogative. If
WTZ and Gersten wanted to sue the hell out of the CIA that was their business.
I didn't want to get KG in trouble if there were a lawsuit simply because he
had inadvertently leaked information, [if] it was valid information. I didn't
expect to continue my contact with the CIA and had no further contacts until
1984 (see below). ERROR #4
ITEM 9: Pg. 3, para. 2, sent. 2,3 : "At one point Zechel asked him directly,
if he was working for the CIA. [You might say that, Maccabee replied]." I would
like to state that I have never been employed by the CIA nor paid by the CIA.
The hot AIR paper should have pointed out that the context of this statement
was a casual conversation with WTZ. I pointed out that by talking with Ron
Pandolfi or other employees I was providing them with information, and [in that
context] I was "working for" the CIA. I was saving the employees some effort to
learn what they could by themselves by other means. However, I didn't tell them
everything. In other words, I have withheld information from Ron and others. I
never mentioned WTZ's proposal to re-sue the agency, for example.
Regarding my employment, I might add that, although I am a civilian employee
of the Navy, I have never been in Naval Intelligence or any intelligence
agency. Nor have I been advised in any way related to UFO research activities
by any agency of the government except that the laboratory where I work has
said "keep our name out of it."
ITEM 10: pg. 3, para. 2, sent. 4 : "In [April 1990], however, Maccabee began
to back-pedal on what he'd been told by the UFO files custodian in 1979.....In
this version the CIA man had merely been speculating about the totality of the
CIA's collection, judging by the one or two thousand he had control over."
WRONG! Evidently WTZ has "conveniently" (because it makes a better story?)
forgotten that the "back pedalling" had all occurred in [May, 1979] . For the
reader who doesn't know who is telling the truth I ask whether or not you think
that WTZ would have failed to pursue this point (i.e., are there 15,000
documents or aren't there?) in the spring of 1979 when the subject was
hot...[he needed to know whether or not there were thousands more pages for the
next lawsuit]. I submit that WTZ did the logical thing in 1979 and asked me at
that time to clarify the situation: was my contact aware, or wasn't he aware,
of "15,000" pages? The writer's indication that this "back-pedaling" didn't
take place until 1990 is part of the poor investigation evident in this paper.
ERROR #5
The AIR paper continues in the next several paragraphs to build an argument
which the writer portrays as logical (the "custodian" should know how many
documents there are). However, the truth or falsity of the claim that there are
thousands more pages of UFO documents cannot be determined from the information
I was given. The simple fact is that, because of the compartmented nature of
the CIA (and other intelligence agencies), [it may be that no one who knows how
many pages there are].
ITEM 11: pg. 3, para. 7, sent. 3: "Green was awarded the CIA's National
Intelligence Medal for his work on a "classified project" from 1979 to 1983
[precisely the years in which Maccabee was meeting with him at CIA
headquarters]." WRONG! (Way to go, Kit!) It appears that the writer/WTZ is
trying to imply that the "classified project" was related to UFO research and
my contacts. I don't know what the "classified project" was, but I do know it
had nothing to do with my contacts from 1979 to 1983 because [there weren't
any]. After that last meeting with KG in the spring of 1979 I didn't see him
again and had no contact with the agency until June, 1984 when I was contacted
by Dr. Ronald Pandolfi regarding my Navy work. He had been tracking
developments by the "other side" in that field of research and wanted to know
what the US state of the art was. ERROR #6
During my first meeting with Ron we discussed my Navy research. I didn't
mention my previous visit to the Agency 5 years before, nor did I mention
anything about UFOs because I didn't want him to think I was "nuts." However, I
subsequently learned that he discussed my visit with someone who did remember,
because soon afterward I got a phone call in which he brought up my UFO
interest. I didn't quite know how to take this and approached the situation
with some caution. So, over the next few years, when we met to discuss LIS
research and projects we would occasionally also discuss UFO cases I was
working on and ufology in general. There were several people who were mildly
interested in the subject, but none, to my knowledge, was actively involved in
research. In the summer 1987 after the release of the MJ-12 papers and the
MUFON International Symposium in Washington, DC, where the MJ-12 papers were
discussed publicly for the first time Ron asked if I would be willing to give a
lunchtime talk at the CIA. That sounded amusing, so I said yes. My talk to
all-comers, secretaries, messenger boys, researchers and spies (?), centered
around the papers which the CIA had itself released, and, of course, the
already controversial MJ-12 papers. Although I gained no new information, Ron
said that I created a lot of "spies" in the Agency, as everyone tried to find
documents on their own. (Clearly most of the employees were not familiar with
the UFO phenomenon in general and the CIA documents in particular.)
Subsequently I spoke there in 1990 about the Gulf Breeze sightings and most
recently about a magnetic case that occurred in Gulf Breeze last September
(1992). In each case I presented lectures that I had already given to other
audiences. The most recent lecture was a repeat of my presentation of the
magnetic case at the April, 1993, meeting of the American Physical Society in
Washington, DC.
ITEM 12: pg. 4, para. 3., last sentence: "[..Bill Moore's best known
creation--the MJ-12 hoax]." WRONG! It is my belief, having known Bill and
having known about his investigative approach for more than 13 years, that the
suggestion that Bill faked the MJ-12 papers (EIB) is [extremely hot air]. WTZ
has his own reasons for claiming that Moore faked the document. Part of WTZ's
"hidden agenda" (hinted at in the paper) is to discredit the Roswell/Corona
crash and the MJ-12 papers in order to build up his own baby, the Dec. (5,6,7 -
pick a date), 1950 Texas-Mexico border crash (see pg. 7, para. 1,2, of the AIR
report). [There is no evidence that Bill Moore created the MJ-l2 documents. If
they are a hoax, it is not his fault]. ERROR #7
NOTE: THE ASSERTION THAT MOORE CREATED THE EIB/MJ-12 PAPERS LEADS TO NUMEROUS
OTHER ERRORS IN THE PAGES FOLLOWING PG. 4. I HAVE NOT ENUMERATED THEM.
ITEM 13: last sentence at the bottom of page 4: "There are probably
thousands of people all over the country suffering from the same sort of
[paranoid delusions] as Paul Bennewitz." YES! And the writer of this paper
seems to be one of them. Presumably the AIG members are others.
ITEM 14: pg. 5, para. 3, sent. 4: "In fact, Moore told Todd Zechel in early
1980 that "I'll bet you've heard that you can't [make money off UFOs?] Well, I
proved that wrong!" For WTZ to accuse BM of trying to make some money off UFOs
is like the pot calling the kettle black. WTZ has established a track record of
grand schemes to make movies and books that would lead to BIG BUX.
ITEM 15: pg. 6, para. 8, sent. 2: "[Quickly] Moore set about circulating
this material.." WRONG! The EIB was received in late December, 1984. Bill and
Jamie told only a couple of people about the EIB over the next couple of years
and did not generally release it until after it was published by Timothy Good
in England in the late spring of 1987, [three and a half years later]. ERROR #8
ITEM 16: pg. 8, para 1, sent. 1: "...[thanks' to Maccabee's influence] ..."
WRONG! Here the writer implies that I had some influence on how Whitley
Streiber in MAJESTIC and how Howard Blum in [OUT THERE] portrayed Moore and
Doty. WHAT AMAZING GARBAGE. Sure I knew Whitley, but I had no involvement with
his book. He met Moore on his own and formed his own opinion, I presume. As for
Blum, I never had a discussion or contact with him before his book came out [or
since]. Hence I could not have influenced him. ERROR #9
ITEM 17: Pg. 8, para. 5, sent. 2,3: "How much involvement did he have in
spreading the MJ-12 hoax? How much influence did Ron Pandolfi have over his
conduct during this whole affair?" Answer 1: I supported, and continue to
support, legitimate investigation into the EIB/MJ-12 papers which are not yet
proven to be a hoax. Answer 2: NONE.
ITEM 18: pg. 8, para. 6, sent. 2: (referring to my paper "UFO Landings near
Kirtland AFB or Welcome to the Cosmic Watergate") The report was [co-authored
by Bill Moore]. WRONG! I wrote the whole report based on my investigation.
Afterward I sent it to Bill and asked him to write an addendum outlining what
he knew. He did so. The title page of the report, which anyone can obtain from
the Fund for UFO Research, reads "(the above title) by Bruce Maccabee with
comments by Bill Moore." Bill's input to the paper is confined to the "notes"
on pages 29 and 30 of the 30 page report. I made no changes in my text as a
result of Bill's notes. This is hardly what one could call "co-authored." ERROR
#10.
ITEM 19: pg. 8, para. 6., sent. 4: "A careful examination of the
circumstances surrounding the documents ([and Maccabee's own report]) clearly
shows that the document is a fraud created by Doty." WRONG! There is no
evidence that it is a fraud. Furthermore, there is testimony by people
mentioned in the report which indicates that it actually happened. In
particular, Maj. Ernest Edwards confirmed the details about the sightings of
the Manzano Guards, but, unfortunately, too late for me to include this in my
paper. If the writer has any conclusive evidence that it is a fraud, as opposed
to [innuendo and "wishful thinking"] (he hopes it is a fraud because it makes
his story better), then I would like to see it. ERROR #11
ITEM 20: pg. 8, para. 6, sent. 7: "Maccabee now privately admits that the
whole MJ-12 mess is [probably a hoax]. WRONG! I would agree that it is,
[possibly] a hoax (NOT BY BILL MOORE), but I have seen no evidence that makes
me think that the EIB itself is probably a hoax. [If it is a hoax, then it is
extremely sophisticated, utilizing historical details that were not previously
known. It certainly isn't "crude," as has been suggested by some considerably
less-than-brilliant skeptics]. ERROR #12
ITEM 21: pg. 8, para. 6, sent. 2 : "When did Maccabee know the MJ-12
material was fraudulent, was it before he provided Stan Friedman with $16,000
of Fund money?" WRONG! This sentence is evidence of the argument by innuendo
and interence with some slanting of the data included. I didn't know that the
document was fraudulent before Friedman's investigation and [I still don't].
[Final judgement awaits evidence...none of which is presented in the hot AIR
paper].
ITEM 22: pg. 8, para. 7, sent. 2: "...and had asked for a [paltry] $500 to
get the effort rolling, using a diligent attorney who [volunteered to do the
legal work]." WRONG! Here is WTZ's listing of "Costs to the Fund" : "I seek an
initial contribution of $500, which would cover my basic expenses in preparing
the suit for filing. Once the suit was ready to file, I would need an
additional contribution of about $2,000 as a retainer for the attorney(s)."
ERROR #13
The subject matter of this paragraph is more fully discussed in the main text
of this paper.
ITEM 23: pg. 9, para. 7, ". ..all this should be viewed...in light of Dr.
Maccabee's (hence FUFOR's) [concurrent relationship with the CIA]. WRONG! More
ultimate claptrap. The allegations in this paper should not be viewed in the
light of my CIA association. [The Fund has never had a "relationship" with the
CIA]. Furthermore, as I pointed out in the main text of this paper, my CIA
acquaintances had no impact on my UFO activities with respect to MJ-12 or any
other aspect of government cover-up investigation. ERROR #14
ITEM 24: pg. 9, para 8., sent. 3: (regarding my analysis and support of the
Gulf Breeze Sightings) "...most serious researchers have come to the conclusion
that indeed the case is a hoax." Is that so? Does the writer, or WTZ have any
evidence of this? Did they take a poll? Where is it published? Just how many
serious researchers, as opposed to those who merely [read] papers about the
case, are there? How do they explain all the other sightings? I suggest that if
the AIG really knew how to investigate sightings, as opposed to writing
scurrilous "expose" papers, they ought to look more carefully into Gulf Breeze
(and New Zealand and Guardian).
ITEM 25: pg. 10, top para. sent. 2: "Or is his technical ability to analyze
photographic evidence really that poor?" More unmitigated garbage. Would the
writer like to challenge me to an analysis duel, perhaps? My analysis of the
Gulf Breeze photos has recently been reviewed and expanded by Jeff Sainio.
Perhaps the writer would like to smear him, too.
ITEM 26: pg. 10, top para. sent. 3: "...one could [speculate] that Dr.
Maccabee's public support for the case might have been [encouraged by his
intelligence contacts]." WRONG! One could also speculate that the writer is a
moron or a childmolester or a sexual deviate (pick one...or several).
Speculation is easy. Why didn't the writer simply ask me, "Did your
intelligence contacts "encourage" you to support the Gulf Breeze sightings?" I
would have answered...[NO]. Although they didn't try to advise me one way or
another, their comments were more to the opposite, since they were skeptical of
the sightings. ERROR #15
Oddly enough, the writer provides support for my claim in the previous
sentence that my CIA contacts [didn't] encourage me to support the Gulf Breeze
Sightings by stating that Pandolfi told "others" that he considers Ed Walters
to be a "total fraud." Not only has he told others, he also said that to me.
However, he pointed out that he has no evidence that Ed is a fraud.
ITEM 27: pg, 10, para. 7, sent. 2, 3: (Referring to the Guardian
investigation by Maccabee and Oechsler) "[It is not known] whether any Fund for
UFO Research monies were expended in this investigation...again, [it is
unknown] whether Fund for UFO Research monies have been expended." In keeping
with the "slant" or bias throughout the paper, the writer publishes a simple
question [for its value as innuendo or suggestion of wrongdoing]....a simple
question which could have been answered before the publication by a simple
phone call to the Chairman, Richard Hall, or to any of the other members of the
Executive Board. The answer is NO (a thousand times, no).
ITEM 28: pg. 11, para. 2, last sentence: (referring to the Fund's non-
support of the demonstration by Operation Right to Know) "But given Dr.
Maccabee's relationship with the CIA, the actual reasons for this opposition
are in question." As I have pointed out before, my "relationship with the CIA"
had no effect on the policy and decisions of the Fund for UFO Research.
ITEM 29: pg. 12, para. 3 In this paragraph it is suggested that my CIA
connection had something to do with the decision to "terminate" Larry Bryant's
membership in the Executive Committee. WRONG! The decision was based on
internal Executive Committee deliberations and my association with the CIA had
nothing to do with it. [In fact, I was not in favor of terminating his
membership]. ERROR #16
ITEM 30: pg. 12, para. 3: "For some reason Bryant's request [angered the
CIA].." WRONG! Angered the CIA? What the hell would the CIA care about a
request for FBIS reports [which are not classified] (as the AIR paper correctly
reports)? I have no information that Bryant's request "angered the CIA." ERROR
#17
ITEM 31: pg. 12, para. 3: "...Maccabee was scolded by Pandolfi" because of
Bryant's FOI request. WRONG! He never mentioned it to me. ERROR #18
ITEM 32: pg, 12, para. 3: "Bryant's action '[could jeopardize the Fund's
relationship wlth the CIA].'" WRONG! More misinformation. [There never was a
"Fund relationship wlth the CIA"], so Bryant's action could not jeopardize it.
ERROR #19
ITEM 33: pg. 12, para. 5. This paragraph, entitled "Maccabee Disinforms
FUFOR" is more complete poppycock. First of all, "disinformation" includes
falsehood. Providing disinformation is different from providing incomplete
information. It is true that I never told the Fund members everything about my
CIA contacts. After all, most of my contacts were professionally related and
they had no need to know.
I have ignored numerous other innuendoes and "truth-stretchers" because I
don't want to end up writing a paper that is several times longer than the AIR
itself. I think it is clear that the writers are not infallible and that if
future papers are like this one, [LET THE READER BEWARE]!
** End **
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
