Inquiry Report -- 5/22/98
I failed to connect with Straub yesterday, and I may not have another chance until next Tuesday.
What I intend to report to Straub is that our group of investigators has accumulated substantial indirect evidence of a government UFO cover-up.
Our prime exhibit is Ron and his phenomenology network. This network appears to be structured in a manner that could facilitate the collection of UFO related data while at the same time being able to maintain a posture of deniability.
If there is a policy to employ subterfuge in fulfilling this 'unconventional' collection requirement, then that policy is being admirably executed. This set of circumstances raises several issues that will have to be addressed.
I suspect, however, that the above circumstances are simply both de facto and default. There has not been any formal policy setting process. There are no controls over this networking endeavor despite the fact that it has thoroughly insinuated itself into the government. This is a situation that could easily lend itself to very significant abuses of public power and trust.
If this last surmise is correct, then there are compelling reasons for the government to set about the task of formalizing, at least to some reasonable degree, an effective phenomenology network.
I have been informed that the present phenomenology network is the successor to and spin-off of a formerly classified entity that was sometimes known as the Enigma Group. I am not acquainted with the circumstances of the demise of this group, but they are worth speculating upon in order to help ascertain our present options. To guide this speculation we will need some background material.
Phenomenology is usually taken as the attempt to classify a given set of phenomena that do not otherwise fall under the purview of an existing science. However, within the context of national security, nothing can be taken as given. Therefor the collection requirement must remain completely open. This fact alone creates dilemmas for the government. Clearly there will be conflicts between national security and the various legal restrictions on data collection. Also the collection requirements may justifiably include phenomena that incite public curiosity such as UFOs, the paranormal, parapsychology, etc.
My understanding is that the Enigma Group attempted to exclude certain types of data so as not to create a tempting target for public curiosity. Also there was the concern that the open-ended requirements were not compatible with the normal bureaucratic rigidities. These were among the considerations that lead to the formation of the informal and freewheeling phenomenology network.
The desire to avoid public curiosity in incompatible with the need to collect data in the public sector, unless a very great effort is expended on secrecy. Such an effort would necessitate a structure that would in no way be freewheeling. To some degree I represent that public curiosity, which may also be the public's obligation to keep itself informed on matters of general concern.
Perhaps all of these issues have already been considered and adjudicated, but I suspect not. Can these issues be given a reasonable airing without jeopardizing our national security? I believe there is an obligation for us to make that effort.
Dan
.
rev. 5/22/98