Comments on: Book Reviews And Agendas

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:02:36 +0000

Greg,

You wrote:

“These subtleties are lost on people who see the issue as black-and-white and as some sort of a monumental struggle between civilians and military/ intel personnel.”

That does seem to be the problem. I only got seriously interested in this subject (UFOs, to the point of actively reading/seeking info) around 1 yr ago, and while I admit I initially framed the Governments role in the UFO issue just as you have noted above, I have learned in less than a year that there is much, much, MUCH more to the story.

The Govt UFO relationship is a multi-layered mess with much more complexity than the common assumption of “they know all” & “them Vs Us”.

How anyone could spend any amount of time in this field - especially as a researcher - and not allow their view of Govt involvement to evolve is just beyond me. Emotional attachment to an idea, ‘and all that’.

By: Greg Bishop

Greg Bishop — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:06:25 +0000

Victor,

I wouldn’t categorize Durant as a “nut,” but I think he was outraged at my lack of outrage.

Thanks for the advice on Amazon. I’ll probably just shut up, like you said.

By: Greg Bishop

Greg Bishop — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:03:55 +0000

Gareth,

It seems a little disingenuous of me to post my reaction without having the original review to compare it against, but when I found the letter, my emotions took over! As I remember, he had a few valid points, but they seemed pyrrhic as compared to the rest of the review, which was driven by a single-minded desire to defend the “reality” of UFOs. In other words, he missed the point of the book entirely: that we should be aware of the history of disinfo and how it works if we are to make any headway in the Government angle.

Why are gov’t people interested in the subject? What do we need to listen to in order to get a handle on what they know and perhaps more importantly, what they don’t? What are they trying to learn from the civilian researchers? Lots of avenues for information are available, if you play the game.

These subtleties are lost on people who see the issue as black-and-white and as some sort of a monumental struggle between civilians and military/ intel personnel.

By: Greg Bishop

Greg Bishop — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:56:01 +0000

Carlos,

You may be right about the UFO disinfo. I concentrated on the idea that he and others were being away from something, but there is a possibility that they were being led towards something as well. Perceptive of you.

By: Greg Bishop

Greg Bishop — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:53:48 +0000

Kenn,

There seem to be a lot of internet sites that ignore the new (as of four years ago) data on the Bennewitz saga. I don’t want to get involved in that tarbaby.

By: Victor

Victor — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:58:40 +0000

Durant sounds like a nut who was outraged that you failed to ride his favorite hobby-horse to the exclusion of all else, candidly.

As for Amazon, you actually can comment on reader reviews. I’m not sure that it’s really good for an author to make a habit of responding to reviews and criticism, no matter how tempting it is. Should you wish to, there’s a “Comment” link at the bottom of each Customer Review.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:19:20 +0000

So essentially Durant incorrectly assumed you were anti-Ufology and a debunker, and reacted emotionally by writing that review? Do you think he would have written it had he known that you actually do believe there is something to the UFO subject?

I do hope someone is able to track down the review (I had no luck myself).

I’m not even sure of the point Durant was trying to make in some of those examples you cited. (Why he offered a litany of instances where the US Govt. offered inside info. And why he might have a problem with the Hynek involvement).

I’m sure if I read the review things would make more sense.

By: crgintx

crgintx — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:43:15 +0000

After reading Project Beta and I listened to the show while moving form Houston to Austin(Western Travis Co. actually), I was quite outraged by the abuse of obviously mentally ill man by the US Intelligence community for any purpose whatsoever. I’ve had a couple of years to digest this and given the other gov’t abuses that were happening at the time and the looming gargantuan failure of the US intelligence community to predict the fall of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain. the Bennewitz Affair seems even more outrageous while at the same time, small and insignificant against the larger backdrop of the Cold War. Those of us who follow the flow of UFO news and information should be far more suspect of any future alleged gov’t whistleblowers, leaked documents about anything of a paranormal or parapolitical nature. It seems to me Paul Bennewitz was being used as a conduit for disinformation to see where it would go as much as he was being led astray to protect the secret weapons research at Kirtland AFB. Since we are outside the inner workings of the US Intelligence apparatus, we don’t know what were the mission goals and the true results of the intelligence operations involving Paul Bennewitz. Likely as not, we never will.

By: Kenn Thomas

Kenn Thomas — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:34:16 +0000

Haha! That last comment came back with “your comment is waiting moderation”–as will this one, no doubt.

By: Kenn Thomas

Kenn Thomas — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:32:29 +0000

So much for moving the story forward. You’d think that Durant would at least hail your motives. Why is ufology not only flanked by but filled with know nothings and know it alls?

This was recently posted to me:

http://godssecret.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/2409/

No mention of your book. It seems like a step backward in understanding Bennewitz–or just a lateral move.