AN OPEN LETTER TO MARK RODEGHIER Mark Rodeghier San Fransisco. 11 July 1993. Center for UFO Studies 2457 West Peterson Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60659 Dear Mark: Your detailed and informative study of the involvement of Battelle in UFO research (IUR vol.18 No.3, May-June 1993) gave me a mixture of pleasant reactions and negative thoughts. I was fascinated to learn what had happened to the people involved. I was happy to see that, contrary to others in ufology, you had understood that the document whose existence I had revealed was genuine and that it demonstrated that the Robertson Panel had been manipulated. It is impossible to respond in detail, because the article is marred by snide remarks that detract from its serious intent. There would be much to say about the issue, and it could be summarized under four headings: 1. Attempts to pass off Cross' request for massive, secret operations (designed to calibrate witnesses) as mere extensions of previous ground photography projects are very weak. Indications do exist that actual simulations have been conducted since 1953, although it is true that Battelle may not have been involved. 2. Equally weak is the argument that the Robertson panel did not have to be briefed on Cross' findings because, after all, "the information belonged to the client." While your remark would be entirely justified in the world of business, here we are suposed to be dealing with Science with a capital "S", where such games are not played. There should be no such thing as "proprietary science". I think you misunderstand the reactions I had at the time (1967). I was embarking on a career that would dedicate my life to scientific research. My disgust when I discovered the letter was not caused so much by the minor details of what it implied or did not imply about ufology, but by what it meant in terms of the conduct of science. I thought it was perfectly scandalous. I still do, and I am amazed that you and Jenny can exonerate the agencies that condone this practice. 3. Cross wrote about "what can and cannot be discussed" with Dr. Robertson and his illustrious colleagues. His client made the key decision, as you have verified, and only superficial findings were discussed. You choose to accept the statement by Battelle staffers that what "could not be discussed" was not significant. I believe that other interpretations should be considered. 4. The Pentacle Memo has serious implications regarding the possible reality of pre-1953 UFO crashes. The point was brought up by Barry Greenwood in his own comments on the Pentacle Memo ("Just Cause" No.35, March 1993): Cross does not mention recovered hardware at any point. What does that imply for Roswell? Either it did not happen, in which case a great deal of time and money is being wasted by investigators combing the desert for traces of the material, or it did happen, in which case there is indeed another project somewhere. Have you considered the possibility that some of Jenny Zeidman's former collegues simply lied to you and her? After all, if they can withhold information from a panel of Nobel-class physicists with top secret clearances, why would they spill the beans for ufologists? "Just Cause" put its finger on the real problem when it wrote: "why would the Air Force proceed with the Battelle study in secret, withholding the critical evidence, and try ro extract patterns and flight characteristics from what Battelle told them was a group of lousy reports? Why bother when the Robertson panel did a negarive study for far less time and money than Battelle, and the Battelle study proceeded beyond the conclusion of the Robertson panel? There is no sense to this if saucers were in our hands." Thus the case remains very much open. To summarize, your article may be read by many as a whitewash of Project Stork's role in what constitutes a very important bifurcation in the history of UFO research. You did cast new light on the genesis and development of the Battelle project. On this score I am in close agreement with Jenny and yourself: the Battelle staff did a great job of research. As I noted in "Forbidden Science", the letter is straightforward, well thought out; the subsequent "Report 14" was a fine piece of work under the circumstances. But you downplay what holds the most interest, namely the possible reality of another, larger secret project. There was a reason for convening and manipulating the panel instead of simply letting Stork complete its job. Control of the UFO problem had changed hands: who was controlling it and why? Who is controlling it today? The Pentacle Memo, in my view, is a key historical document precisely because it lies at that particular juncture where power changed hands. Allen did not like to face this issue -- it compromised his own role -- and he pushed it under the rug. All these points, and the relevant documents, need to be aired and discussed freely. Who knows what other facts might still be waiting to come to light? The Pentacle Memo was not an isolated statement. Its meaning, and its relevance to the field, will only be clarified fully when other documents from that era can be dredged up. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, thes needed debate is made difficult by the tone of your article. I am getting used to snide remarks from CUFOS, but they usually do not come from your own pen. Why did you find it necessary to include a throwaway statement like, "Jacobs is more knowledgeable about the history of UFO study than Vallee"? What am I supposed to answer to that? Can't you leave it for future, more impartial observers to decide who deserves a medal? Why turn what should be a serious debate into a pissing contest? Another throwaway line that I found discouraging was your remark that anyone reading something sinister into the Pentacle Memo, as I do, had to have a conspiratorial mind. Coming as it does from a group like CUFOS, which supports an abductee's statement that she was taken away in a flying saucer by Short Gray aliens along with the Secretary General of the United Nations, such a remark is curious. You must admit that in the context of today's wild and woolly claims and counter-claims, my own conspiratorial fantasies are bland and innocuous indeed. In the current state of our collective ignorance it would seem prudent for CUFOS to regard its colleagues' work with a little more consideration, even when that work disturbs some old ideas. With best regards, Jacques Jacques Vallee 1550 California Street, No.6L San Fransisco, CA. 94109 -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG From: U35226@uicvm.uic.edu (Mark Rodeghier 413-3760) Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Subject: Re: Vallee--Rodeghier Response Message-ID: <93197.141553U35226@uicvm.uic.edu> Date: 16 Jul 93 19:15:53 GMT References: <4563.2C458AFE@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center Lines: 19 I and my coauthor Jennie Zeidman will likely provide a more detailed response (though there is really not much point). However, I do have these immediate points to make: 1) Vallee gives no evidence to support this contentions, unlike our detailed comments and information in the article. 2) Vallee started the "pissing contest" against other ufologists long before anyone at CUFOS got involved, so I suggest he stop calling the kettle black. 3) If he has evidence that Battelle employees lied to us, provide it. If not, I would suggest our argument stands. I still respect Vallee, but I have to say what I believe and have come to understand through careful analysis. I'm sorry that he somehow finds that offensive. Mark Rodeghier CUFOS