Mark Rodeghier San Francisco. 15 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 indicated 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 supposed
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 Jennie 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 document ("Just
Cause" No.35, March 1993): Cross does not mention recovered
hardware at any point. What does that mean 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 Jennie Zeidman's former colleagues simply avoided
the
issue? After all, if they can withhold information from a panel
of Nobel-class physicists with top secret clearances (or more
precisely, "not disclose the particulars of their work" to them,
as you observed), 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 to extract
patterns and flight characteristics from what Battelle told them
was a group of lousy reports? Why bother when the Robertson
panel did a negative 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." The case remains 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 Jennie 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, this 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 under
the eyes of 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 Vallee
Jacques Vallee
1550 California Street, No.6L
San Francisco, CA. 94109
0 comments:
Post a Comment