- ” … you blew it …”
- ” … a snap judgement without examining the evidence …”
- ” … your spontaneous and instant negative reaction …”
- ” … your attitude problem …”
- ” … you abused your position of trust and responsibility …”
- ” … inexcusable … a new record for prejudice …”
- ” … you’ve just won the Golden Fleece Award …”
- ” … outstanding ineptness …”
- ” … amateur sleuthing …”
- ” … self-centered …”
- ” … lacking any real expertise …”
- ” … seated upon your starry throne …”
- ” … elected yourself to be the final arbiter of the truth …”
- ” … Judge, Jury, and Executioner …”
- ” … Kangaroo Court Proceeding of your own fashioning …”
- ” … arm-chair expertise …”
- ” … laughable …”
Following paragraph after paragraph of this kind of personal invective, Mr. Mathias then suggests that:
In our opinion, the public deserves the truth regarding the real story of UFO’s, government involvement and the Alien threat. That should be our objective. … Perhaps you’ll agree that that objective is more productive than entertaining the public via the BBS links with a side-show of petty squabbles and bickering between individuals and organizations. This is a noble sentiment and one which we at ParaNet wholeheartedly agree with. Hopefully, in the future, the Phoenix Project’s representatives will take some of their own advice and try to keep the rhetoric down to a more civilized level. Having said that, let’s look at the actual issues raised by this latest salvo from the Phoenix Project, and see how they stack up.
Let us review the facts. You reacted by issuing a public warning to the members of ParaNet, which was also widely distributed via other BBS’s nation-wide. That warning contained language which implied the information, and the source was highly suspect. Thus, single-handedly, you created a strong impression throughout the UFO community, that our information was false. Many sincere people, trusting your qualifications, accepted your warning.
True. You took it upon yourself to make a snap judgment without examining the evidence.
False. We did not arrive at our conclusion single-handedly or instantaneously. Our analysis and the resulting warning were the products of considerable discussion among ParaNet’s researchers and subscribers. They were also labeled as tentative, pending further investigation.
In your message, you mention that you wrote to the Phoenix Project, after the fact and your preliminary judgment, requesting further information. You made the same comment in other BBS messages. You state that we did not respond to your request. You also imply, by insinuation, that this is a mark against us and a further indication that we are suspect. … To date, we have not received your letter of inquiry. Apparently, of all the mail we receive, your letter is the only one that has gone astray. We can only conclude that it was either lost in the mail or you didn’t mail it. Did it ever occur to you to mail us a second request, when you did not receive a response to your first inquiry?
The letter was followed up with electronic mail to the Project’s spokesman, Jack Mathias. The request for information was repeated through that channel. The request was refused.
But, this was not the end of your attitude problem regarding the Phoenix Project. You did the same thing, again, issuing warnings, etc., with our release of the K-2 and the Ultimate Secret Reports. And, again, you had not seen or examined the supporting documents at the time you issued those warnings to ParaNet and the public.
We have already stated our reasons for suspecting the ‘K-2‘ and “Ultimate Secret” reports. As with the ‘Dulce‘ report, our suspicions went to the core of the entire concept and execution of both reports; consequently, it seemed unlikely that the “supporting documents” would make much difference. Our judgment in this matter was borne out when we received the “supporting documents” from another source. We were not impressed.
Would we be out of line in concluding that your mind was already made-up?
Yes, that would be out of line, since our minds were not and in fact, are not yet entirely made up. Our warnings were tentative, and in our view totally justified. So far we have not been provided with any evidence to the contrary. If such evidence is provided, we will not only change our minds but say so publicly.
Fortunately, for the UFO Movement, other investigators and researchers don’t share your opinion.
That’s not the feedback we’ve been getting.
You state in your initial message that “much of the information in the Dulce Report about Dulce and the Archuleta Mesa contradicts information already provided to ParaNet by other capable investigators.” What information? Who provided it? How did you determine its validity?
Our information consists of the testimony of ParaNet investigators and others who have been in Dulce and on the Mesa. Their experiences were very different from what you describe, and it is difficult to reconcile your claims with the findings of our own people.
We formally request access to that information. We’d like to examine it ourselves. Can we obtain copies of ‘that’ information?