SUBJECT: MSG THREAD ON THE PHOENIX PROJECT FILE: UFO1544 PART 3 PP> Sign, was established as a cover operation. In 1960, the PP> Project's name was changed from Project SIGN to Project PP> Bluebook. This is demonstrably and totally wrong. Project Sign was established first, in 1947, and it was under the control of the Air Force, not the CIA. The name was changed to Project Grudge in 1949, and to Blue Book in 1952-- not 1960. (For details, see "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects" by Edward J. Ruppelt, who headed the project from 1951 to 1953.) The exact dates slide around a little bit depending on whether you're talking about when the decision was made, when the order was signed, or when the order became effective; but the differences are on the order of months, not decades! How could the Phoenix Project's experienced intelligence agents make so many ludicrous errors in a single paragraph? --- FD 1.99c * Origin: ParaNet -- Leading UFO Research Network (1:104/428.0) =========================================================================== BBS: Flite-Line Date: 08-20-92 (13:25) Number: 5584 From: PARANET INFORMATION SERVI Refer#: NONE To: ALL Recvd: NO Subj: Phoenix Response - Conclu Conf: (46) UFO(Fido) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Forwarded from "ParaNet UFO Echo" * Originally from ParaNet Information Service * Originally dated 08-20-92 13:24 In fact, this whole business was such an embarrassing mess that the Phoenix Project issued a "correction" document to try to straighten it out. But, ironically, the correction is also wrong--just less obviously so. We could go on, but I think you get the point. The "Ultimate Secret" report is, at best, a rehash of other people's garbage. At worst, it is a deliberate effort to confuse and disinform. PP> We actively encourage other serious investigators to use the PP> information we have provided as a basis for conducting their own PP> inquiry and to carry-on our effort. Can you, Mr. Corbin, or PP> ParaNet, or Mufon, make the same claim. Or, is it true that the PP> results of critical investigations are held sacred by the elite PP> leadership of these organizations, and are not shared with the PP> member's of their organizations or the public? We can't speak for other organizations, but in the case of ParaNet we have always made our results public as soon as our investigations are complete. PP> In your message, you insinuate that because of our past military PP> and intelligence backgrounds, our area of expertise so-to-speak, PP> that the motives of the Phoenix Project are suspect. You further PP> insinuate that we are possibly government operatives attempting to PP> send serious researchers off on a variety of wild goose chases. Given the prior history of government disinformation in ufology, most of it purveyed by active or former intelligence agents and their victims, anyone who (1) purports to have a military intelligence background, (2) refuses to divulge their identity, and (3) propagates known disinformation as reliable intelligence (whether deliberately or not) should expect his motives to be considered suspect until proven otherwise. It is extremely naive of you to think it would happen any other way. PP> If anyone needed assurance that the truth regarding UFO's will PP> remain a deep, dark, secret -- they can rest secure in the PP> knowledge that you, are on the job. There are any number of PP> government agencies who would welcome you with open arms. PP> Expect some offers. Sorry, none so far. We'll let you know if we get any. PP> We are sure that the honest and sincere members of ParaNet and PP> other UFO investigative organizations (and there are many) must be PP> seriously considering whether your qualifications, fitness and PP> investigative ability warrant your continuance in a position of PP> leadership within what used to be a respected research PP> organization. Exactly the opposite, actually. Most of our people are grateful for the warning, and are coming to the same conclusions as we did. PP> Instead of making an honest attempt to validate or PP> disprove our findings regarding the subjects mentioned -- missing PP> the point completely, you chose to become obsessed with determining PP> the identity of Phoenix Project personnel. For what reason? Do you PP> intend to judge the validity of the information based on the PP> credentials of those providing it? Some people would interpret PP> that as putting the cart before the horse. And some people would interpret it as a determination not to fall prey to the same fate as far too many others in this field, who trusted strangers too easily and ended up wasting years chasing wild geese--or worse. PP> Explain to us how or PP> why the credentials of our investigators, or their identity, have PP> any bearing on the validity of the information. Either the PP> information is true or it isn't. It's as simple as that, or does PP> that simple fact escape you. The credentials of your investigators have a strong bearing on whether or not it is even worth the trouble to examine your "information". Anybody can sit down for a few hours at a word processor and cook up reams of tittilating "information" about almost any subject under the sun. But unless there is good reason to think there might be something to it, it's a fool's errand to try to chase it all down. It's like this: If ordinary claims come from an anonymous source, they may be assigned some measure of trust simply because they accord with everyday experience. If extraordinary claims come from a reputable source, they may be assigned some measure of trust simply because of the proven track record of the person making the claims. But when extraordinary claims originate from an anonymous source, they generally are given no credence at all, because there is simply no reason to believe they are true. Life is too short to chase every wild goose that comes cackling along. There must be *some* reason--either in the plausibility of the claim or the authority of the claimant--to think it's worth the trouble. You have provided neither one. PP> How can we, or others, be assured of your motives. One does PP> not need a brilliant mind to envision a scenario where the PP> information the Phoenix Project has released is discredited because PP> of an act of character assignation. Please explain what "character assignation" is, and then maybe we can envision the scenario you have in mind. PP> Suppose we asked these questions -- would you be prepared to PP> respond to them? Who are you? What are your credentials? Who are PP> those holding positions of leadership in ParaNet? What are their PP> qualifications and credentials? How do we know that you or ParaNet PP> are not controlled by government operatives? What qualifications PP> are required to hold a position of leadership within ParaNet? There has never been any secret about what ParaNet is or who it consists of. Lists of ParaNet nodes and their sysops have been posted to the net on several occasions. Anyone who wants to follow the ParaNet BBS echoes can log in to a local ParaNet node, receive the echo digests over the net, or download them from our FTP archives. All postings are signed with the user name and node ID of the originator. All articles in Continuum, ParaNet's quarterly magazine, are signed by the authors. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but neither our personnel nor our purposes are in any way secret or mysterious. PP> We were unaware that anyone had ever attempted to create a PP> corporation in Nevada calling itself the Phoenix Project. Due to PP> the nature of our work, and to protect the identity of our PP> personnel it would be a foolish endeavor. We never made an attempt PP> to incorporate our organization in any State. The incorporation issue originally came up because we were trying to track down your trademark registration. We have been unable to find any such registration, yet at the beginning of each of your reports you explicitly state that "all publications of the "Phoenix Project" bear the Project's Logo (a registered trade-mark)." Is that a lie? It certainly seems that a trademark registration of the project logo would be almost as much of a threat to "the identity of your personnel" as incorporation would be. PP> You suggest a possible link between our organization and America PP> West. Sorry about that, but you're dead wrong. It has come to us PP> from several sources that we're not on their list of favorite PP> people. We will take this opportunity to categorically deny that PP> we have any affiliation with America West, their publication the PP> "Phoenix Liberator," or any other publication they provide. ********************************************** * THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo * **********************************************