This final part of the interview is what we like to call the “RANT”, feel free to cover anything you want and let the cannon
Here's my rant. It's an extension of some remarks I made earlier in this forum. It's about the willingness--or maybe
eagerness--of UFO devotees to destroy, belittle, and marginalize the very people who may be in the best position to advance this field. Subjects like
SERPO or Burisch deserve our collective scorn. They are minor irritants and distractions. Anyone who claims to be in regular contact with the Elders
of the Cosmic Council or the Galactic Concubine Consortium or who alleges an ability to summon UFOs like taxicabs is, at a minimum, troubled and not
worthy of serious consideration. But there is another strata of folks who don't deserve the abuse, in my opinion.
I read the exchanges on your site about Kit Green, Rick Doty, Bennewitz, etc. Unlike most of the dark conspiracy theories that abound in ufology, the
stuff expressed by your members on this particular area is impressive. It's obvious that a lot of thought went into it. Some logical leaps were
taken, but not without justification. I strongly disagree with the premise but appreciate the effort by some of your members to connect the dots, as
opposed to the reactionary, unsubstantiated gobblydegook that characterizes the larger topic.
I've met Kit Green twice. Both times it was in Las Vegas when he attended meetings organized by NIDS. While I would have welcomed a chance to palaver
with him over beers in some topless joint, there was no interaction worth mentioning, just pleasantries. In the past few years, we have exchanged a
handful of emails. That's it. I'm just saying this to explain that he and I are not buddies, home boys, or running partners. Nonetheless, I believe
that I have a reasonably accurate picture of who he is and what he wants. This impression is based, in large part, on numerous and ongoing
conversations I've had with people who have known him for decades. I also know a great deal about the advice and counsel he offered, in private, to
serious, heavy-duty professionals who risked their professional reputations to pursue the UFO topic at very high levels and for very high stakes. Do I
know everything about him? No. Do I know him better than 99% of the people who are reading this? Yes.
Kit Green did not create the SERPO story. Kit Green had nothing to do with the Bennewitz fiasco. Kit Green is not the person who funneled the juicy
insider information to Rick Doty. In response to this ATS inquiry, I emailed Dr. Green and asked about the alleged Doty-Green disinformation campaign.
Dr. Green acknowledged to me that he has defended Doty on occasion. Why? One view----completely understandable---is that he defends Doty because he
(Green) is reputed to be the source of the alleged disinformation that Doty supposedly disseminates. Kit ran the CIA's "X-File" desk for a period.
He has acknowledged it publicly. That's a biggie. He has been named, over and over, as a member of the legendary and sinister Aviary, especially in
the writings of that esteemed UFO whistleblower Dr. Richard Boylan, who also says he is a conduit for news bulletins from the Supreme Interplanetary
Congress of Alien Poobahs, or something like that. Kit Green is a sinister agent because Boylan says so? Be still, my beating heart.
The question has been raised by your members about why Dr. Green has publicly defended Rick Doty, who, by any definition, is a controversial figure in
this field. Here's one theory. Maybe Green has defended Doty because he knows a bit more about Doty's situation than the rest of us. I personally
have not seen him come to the defense of Doty but will take the word of the ATS readers at face value for purposes of this discussion. If,
hypothetically, Dr. Green knows that he is not the source of Doty's inside info, as has been alleged, is it possible that Green has maintained a
relationship with Doty for other reasons? Dr. Green has told me that , in his opinion, Doty received UFO information from a senior official. (In my
opinion, the implication here is that Green thinks that some of the statements made by Doty have merit.) Dr. Green told me that he has asked Doty
about the source. Doty has declined to answer.
Does anyone want to fill in the blanks?
Kit Green is one of the good guys. He is the kind of person that all of us who are interested in the UFO mystery hopes and prays will get involved.
He's a guy who has extensive experience in intelligence circles but who has always defended the legitimacy of the research. I admit that this set of
circumstances suggests one of two possibilities. Either he is working to muddy the waters, as some ATS members believe, or he putting his reputation
on the line to find out things that grabbed his attention when he was on the inside, things that remain unanswered. You can pick your answer, and
I'll pick mine.
I will say the same about Dr. Hal Puthoff. His name is often mentioned---derisively---in these same discussions. Hal Puthoff is a great man. I'm
serious as a heart attack. He's done things and taken risks that would knock your socks off. I've seen them. One of these days, Hal is going to be a
Nobel Prize candidate (and it won't be a Burisch-style bogus nomination by a famiily pet or publicist.) There's no doubt that Hal's public support
for the legitimacy of UFO inquiry will come back to bite him on the ass. It already has. He understands this but moves forward. The UFO faithful
lament the lack of open iinquiry by serious people. Yet Hal Puthoff, Kit Green, Jacques Vallee, John Alexander, Bob Bigelow, and a handful of others
who make the mistake of jumping into the deep end of their own accord, get their balls shredded on a regular basis. I doubt that any of them lose much
sleep because some goofball UFO attention seeker accuses them of having bird-like code names and a membership in the Aviary. I'm just as certain that
they grudgingly appreciate well-reasoned theories like the ones on the ATS site, even if they don't agree with the conclusion.
But anyone who thinks these men hold secret meetings and plot out nefarious disinformation schemes is wrong. The Aviary? Give me a friggin break.
Eventually, these guys all see or hear the chatter. They laugh about it, not because they feel superior to the masses, but because they can't look
each other in the eyes without busting up. Since I have sometimes been accused of being an Aviary functionary myself, I appealed to the high priests
for a bird name of my own. I was informed that "Buzzard" was the only one left. (Let's see---Falcon,Condor, Owl, Penguin, Blue Jay...damn...I'm
left with Buzzard?) Then I found out that Buzzard---or maybe Vulture--was already taken by alleged CIA contract killer and JFK hitman Gordon Novel.
I'm not crazy enough to pilfer HIS bird name. For crying out loud, who the hell is running this birdcage anyway?
Here's a hypothetical situation to consider. Let's say there are several smart, open minded fellas who work in different parts of the government. A
few of them are military officers, a few others have job experiences that they cannot describe in so many words. During their years in sensitive
positions, they hear stories or read reports about anomalous phenomena. When they ask questions, they are told to mind their own business. It makes a
lasting impression. As their careers progress, they meet other people who share their curiosity. Years later, when they have all moved into private
sector positions---including positions that are connected---at some level--to their former employers, they discreetly express their questions to other
persons who are also curious. These friends try to get answers. The people who know the answers are aware of the inquiries. Some of them might want
to help their former colleagues. Others want to crush them like bugs. The friends keep asking, even though the risks are significant. Then someone
"outs" the friends. Their interest in the forbidden subject becomes public knowledge. Their identities are discussed on websites and within chat
groups. If they weren't exposed as members of the Aviary, maybe it would be called The Bible Cult, and their code nameswould be Exodus, Revelations,
Psalms, or Frodo.
How might this scenario play out? Will the Bible prophets be able to exploit their sources and discover the truth? Or will they end up ostracized,
forced to defend their honor and intentions because people they have never meet believe them to be evil agents? Like I said, this is just
hypothetical. ATS members don't know me from Adam. so I don't expect to sway any opinions. You asked me, so I'm just telling you the situation as I
know it. Kit Green is a standup dude. He's been working on the Big Question for a lot longer than me and a lot longer than almost anyone who is still
reading this. Ditto for Hal Puthoff. If any of your members could meet him in person, the doubts would evaporate, in my opinion. These two guys are
not spreading disinfo. If I am wrong about this, I will withdraw from the field and never come back. (This is not a Dan Burisch-type promise in which
I might return under another name and with a PhD in double-secret-probation biology from Groom Lake U.) I also think that the truth about Rick Doty
is not a black-or-white question. Doty is an interesting cat--that's for sure. Given what is known about his past, it is understandable why he would
generate suspicion and speculation. I'm not defending him since he can surely defend himself. Your members and the members of
have raised some pretty serious questions about his credibility. I don't know enough
about him to offer a definitive opinion. But my gut feeling is that it might be premature to plop a black hat on Doty for all time. He is a
complicated man and my guess is that there are still a few unwritten chapters in his story. Maybe he really is an operative for someone else. Maybe he
just likes to yank our chains. My sense is that he knows a heck of a lot about things that we all WISH we knew, and if we can ever get him to come
clean, honestly, he still might surprise us.
In a somewhat related vein, let me tell you something about an effort to generate congressional hearings into the UFO question. Many of us in the
field have long hoped for such an event in the belief that a formal hearing would advance the quest for truth and elevate the credibility of the
subject. Let's call the following another of my hypothetical scenarios. Just for the heck of it, let's say that a few years ago, a deal was cut to
hold such a hearing. The idea was born right here in Las Vegas and some of the people who worked behind the scenes to make it happen are familiar
names to anyone who has been paying attention. The idea was simple. Focus the hearing on specific UFO-related subjects, but don't bill it as a UFO
hearing. Limit it to a few issues that would not cause embarrassment for the elected officials who agreed to make it happen. For example, let's say
such a hearing could concentrate on incidents involving anomalous aerial objects over sensitive military bases. A hearing like that could be conducted
under the umbrella of a legitimate inquiry into national security questions. Or, hypothetically, include some testimony and case files about near-miss
incidents in which commercial aircraft barely avoided mid-air collisions with unknown objects. That sort of inquiry by a congressional committee cold
be viewed a legitimate undertaking, rather than a hunt for ET. Well, given this limited and politically defensible scope,
some of these hypothetical congressmen agreed to go for it. It was---or would have been--a very important first step toward lifting this subject out
of the tabloid gutter. (There might have been plans for a post-hearing program, plans that would knock your knickers off.) Obviously, no such hearing
was held. Wanna know why? Because the less credible but high-volume voices of UFO fringe groups killed it----hypothetically, of course. Some of you
may recall the story about a UFO news conference held at the National Press Club in DC. The organizers paraded out a handful of former military and
government officials who told their stories about UFO studies within the government. And then the organizers took things a step further by accusing
the government of withholding captured alien technology, technology that could transform our planet and solve all of our energy and transportation
woes. Some of these organizers are also supposedly in regular contact with alien beings whose spaceships can be summoned at will because of the
irresistable power of hand-held flashlights. The news conference essentially demanded that congressional hearings be convened immediately.
Now, if you are a congressman who must stand for re-election every two years, and you are ready to gamble your political future by agreeing to UFO
hearings into limited subjects, and then you see this stuff on TV and in the papers and realize that any fringe groups who might be excluded from such
hearings would be out in front of the capitol with picket signs and ET beanies, what would you do? The UFO zealots would never sit still for a
congressional hearing that did not include them. Never in a million years. Like I said, this is only hypothetical. It probably never happened. But,
for the sake of discussion, let's say it did. My point is that UFO believers are their own worst enemies. They always, always find a way to # things
up and discredit the very subject that is so important to them.
I just think the same thing applies to this exchange about the above-named personalities. In my opinion, the most important scientist to ever take up
the UFO banner is Dr. Jacques Vallee. He gave up on the UFO field years ago, even though he undoubtedly retains a strong interest in the field that he
championed for so long. He simpy could not handle the bickering and nastiness and pettiness and paranoia. Asking questions is healthy. it's what we
are supposed to do. My message is that we should try to be inclusive as we all travel down the same path. If we make it untenable for people like
Vallee or Hal Puthoff or Kit Green to maintain their involvement, even at a low-key level, the field will lose.
Pointed questions are good. Dialogue is healthy. So is decorum and discretion. Don't drive away the people who may be in the best position to advance
the debate simply because you heard they work for the CIA or the Bureau of Disinformation. At some point, reckless speculation about real people with
real jobs (in sensitive positions) ends up being counterproductive. In a field as weird as
this, it's never a bad idea to keep your powder dry and your options open.
That's my take, anyway.
[edit on 7-22-2006 by Springer]