The idea is to put the squeeze on UFOs. We use the aviary to go after the UFOs directly and we use the phenomenology network to establish a cordon sanitaire around the periphery of any possible UFO involvement on the part of our government. It may be that there is a complete disconnect between UFOs and phenomenology, but this dual attack would put a least upper bound (lub) on the various MJ-12 scenarios.

Obviously any separation between phenomenology and UFOs must be completely ad hoc and it appears also to be pro forma. It is for the express purpose of avoiding citizen inquiries, I have been told. The purpose then of the unofficial phenomenology network was first a semantic exercise to eliminate all words that might trigger any FOIAs, and then finally to eliminate the paper trail altogether.

The questionable goal of keeping the citizens in the dark concerning UFOs is compromising our national security with regard to our collection and analysis of anomalous phenomena in general. This is not a tolerable state of affairs.

Now that the paper trail has been eliminated from the phenomenology network it has been possible to bring UFOs in the back door again by maintaining a close liaison with the Aviary, while absolving the government of all UFO contamination. What we see here is a major exercise in semantics, leger de main, and disinformation of the citizens. At the same time it is very likely that this gamesmanship is compromising national security.

Nonetheless, behind this facade of game playing it is not difficult to detect an edge of seriousness that belies the seemingly casual treatment of national security matters. I am reluctant to believe that so much effort is expended and so many liberties taken simply to avoid the FOIA paperwork. The more rational explanation is that there is indeed something serious being hidden from public view.

When all of these buttons are pushed with the principals involved in the arena, there is just one last line of defense: the public does not want to know. Well, I regret to inform all those players that this is an entirely unacceptable justification. It will not stand. Democracy was never intended to provide a defense against truth. Citizens have more than a right to know; we have a contractual obligation with truth. That contract will be enforced.

.

rev. 5/15/98