Compelling national security interests dictate that there be such a thing as a "phenomenological network." There are equally compelling reasons why there should be a proper oversight for this network. However, it appears that this latter obligation is not presently being fulfilled. In fact, a participant has informed me that there has been an effort to minimize or avoid oversight allegedly for reasons of efficiency.

I would like to know who in the Congress should be made aware of this apparent lapse?

----------------

Ron,

I am scheduled for a phone conference with Chris Straub (SSCI) this Thursday pm. This is what I plan to discuss with him. Have I misstated the case?

Dan

--------------

If you are referring to me as the "participant" then you certainly have misstated the case. But why let the facts interfere with your creativity? Also, why a phone conference with Chris? I thought your coffee with Chris last time was a big success. At least you can see his reaction.

Ron

-----------------

Straub's eschatological plate is filled right now with concerns about our lack of oversight wrt nuclear proliferation on the subcontinent. He requested that the briefing be by telephone. I will, however, request a follow-up meeting.

If our communication protocol were more direct there would be less need for me to interpolate your remarks. Could you please fill me in on the quality of the present phenomenological oversight.

Dan

-----------------------

You continue to confuse phenomenology with UFOs and/or intelligence. That's why you think the public would be interested. Phenomenology is natural science. It is the physics behind our observations. At times there is minor public interest, such as with upward propagating lightning, but it fades quickly. The phenomenology network, as you call it, is just a group of scientists, including yourself, who have a common interst in natural science.

Ron

--------------------------

Evidently one of us is confused. My dictionary defines phenomenology as any field of study that classifies phenomena relevant to itself. On the other hand, science is defined as dealing with phenomena that have already been classified as operating within some lawful domain. Clearly there is a distinction. Science is much more strictly defined.

National security cannot allow itself to be compromised by concerns for scientific protocol or correctness. This is why there have to be phenomenology issues over and above any purely scientific issues.

Nonetheless, you have stated to me that the phenomenology network excludes certain types of phenomena from its purview for reasons that appear to be based more on politics than on security. So far you have been unwilling to discuss this issue with me or to describe any process for decision making. Thus I feel compelled to take the matter up with the people in the Congress who have a well defined legal responsibility in such matters.

Dan

-------------------

Contrary to the UFO community's belief, nobody cares.

John A

-------------------

Ron is right. There is a difference between specifically excluding topics, and not being interested in some.

Check the NRL web site for phenomenology.

John A

---------------

On second thought, I should admit that I am more concerned about salvation than about security; however, in an eschatological context these two concerns will be increasingly difficult to distinguish.

With this in mind I will ask Straub to agree to be the congressional liaison for the Aquarium inquiry into government involvement with the UFO phenomenon. This ought to be an offer that would be difficult for him to refuse. This is what he has already been doing implicitly.

Perhaps it was John's two previous contradictory statements that pushed me toward taking this more direct approach. In the first statement you express anguish that no one cares about a phenomenon which you believe is of utmost importance. In the second statement you appear to defend Ron's right to not care about it. Does this strike anyone else as being disingenuous?

Ron must have a weakness for crazy people, otherwise he wouldn't hang out with us. We should be very careful with him because otherwise he might just take his phenomenological football and go home. Well, I am counting on his continuing to be the soft touch that we all know him to be.

I will admit that it is possible that Ron does not know where the alien bodies are stored, but I am willing to wager that he has a pretty good idea of approximately where the most serious of the ufo-type of collections end up, and it is not in a circular file. This is the 'paper trail' that must be pursued if we want an inquiry that is something other than a joke.

Ron, tell me its not true!

Dan

.

rev. 5/20/98