Hmmm....

These CARET pages on the Coast site make me feel funny about this whole
thing. Do I owe Linda an apology? Could be...
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2097.html?theme=light

Kim has an excellent point about the text in those pages, but it is more
lucid than the word-salad that I usually see (although I skimmed, so I could
have missed some big blunders).

I DO have some very stupid questions, though:

1. The thing in the sky is MUCH larger than the prototype in those photos. I
can understand the funky alien text on the prototype, but presumably if we
have a large-scale reverse-engineered drone it would have human markings,
not alien.

2. There are "color" photo blowups from the photos in the book. What are
those blowups supposed to be from? Were they separate photos in the report,
or closeup shots OF the report itself. If so, was the original report in
color? Also, notice that the bottom photo of the two ring-segments is larger
than the cropped version in embedded in the page (which is why I asked)

3. In my experience, trained scientists are absolutely loathe to use the
word "antigravity" - it's only picked up popular usage in the last few years
(I'd like to think because of me). A few years back, though, people were
calling it everything but AG, so it seems odd to see it used to casually in
this text.

4. Why are sections of the text blacked out? Is this supposed to be a FOIA
document? Cause if so, that kind of damages the credibility right there.
Based on the content of these pages, I'd bet that if you did a FOIA request
they'd just send you the black magic-marker and keep the pages themselves to
save time.

Tim

_____

From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:14 PM
To: Kim Burrafato
Cc: Linda Moulton Howe; RAY HUDSON; Dr Harold E Puthoff; Stan Friedman;
Creon Levit; S-P Sirag; Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars;
SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; Mark Pilkington; Nick Cook;
nick@...; GRELET CHRISTOPHE; Vladimir Poponin; colin
bennett; caryn anscomb; Dan Smith; Mark Pesses; Kit Green; Eric Davis; Joe
Firmage; askscience@...; Michael Shermer; bruce maccabee; John
Brandenburg; Gary Bekkum; Sharon Weinberger; art wagner; Paul Murad; Tim
Ventura; tom tum; Massimo Teodorani; Diego Lucio Rapoport; Edgar Mitchell;
George Knapp; John Alexander; Bruce Cornet; ryguy@...;
Stephen Broadbent; Kerry Cassidy; Waldyr Jr.; Joe Stefula; noory George;
art; alan parker; Ronald Pandolfi; Gordon Novel; Jim Marrs; RICK DOTY
Subject: Re: From Linda Moulton Howe, June 27, 2007


That's too Rube Goldberg Kim. Wishing won't make it so. Simplest explanation
is, it's a fraud. Everyone has read Phil Corso - easiest thing in the world
for a misinformation agent to connect it to Corso. The litmus test is to say
something startlingly interesting. All any of these goofy reports show is a
low-level mentality with nothing but cliches out of some 50's Grade B sci-fi
movie. Colin Bennett said it very well better than me. Until I see some real
scientific information beyond comic book fantasy I reject all such reports
as empty of useful information. Clearly it's a covert debunking operation.

Kim Burrafato <lensman137@...> wrote:

Linda and Jack et al

Jack, Ray, and others have a good point in noting that there's really
nothing of any substance in the pages of the alleged photocopied report. No
"real physics or math." And they're just being careful and honest., as we
all have to do when evaluating information like this. But let me play
devil's advocate. These are allegedly pages from a 4th quarter research
report. Remember, "Isaac" said their primary mission was to filter this ET
technology down into to the mainstream, via the private sector. Where have
we heard this before? Phil Corso ring a bell? So, any executive briefing
would not be filled with esoteric math and theories. It would be straight
to the point. In this case (and I'd bet this isn't the only case) they
didn't really get anywhere. The Rosetta Stone hasn't been found yet, it
would appear. Put an automobile in front of a group of apes, and they'd
probably go through a number reaction stages, from fear, to awe, curiosity,
indifference, and maybe even hostility. Sooner or later, one of the apes
would get enough nerve to mess with the engine. He or she might figure out
how to yank a cable off or loosen a nut or screw. But what would they
really know about the object? We may be in a similar situation with regards
to understanding this alleged ET technology. I know that messes with a lot
of egos, but that may really be the case.

I would like to have seen more quantitative data here, but it wasn't
forthcoming. But I'm not willing to dismiss this as an elaborate hoax out
of hand. If it is a hoax. it was likely done by the USG, or rogue elements
thereof. The detail of the photos and linguistic charts is pretty amazing.
Which leads to another interesting correspondence. I'm sure many of you have
noticed the striking similarity of some of the "linguistic analysis" graphs
to some of the more complex crop circles that have appeared. Of course, the
skeptics will immediately chorus "well crops circles are all man made
fakes!" I'm not going to go there now, as it's off point. There's also the
correspondence with the glyphs on the Roswell wreckage reported by Jesse
Marcel and others. But Jack raised some important points when he said:


What is obvious now is that there is an elaborate
misinformation/disinformation conspiracy to use Linda Moulton Howe, Coast to
Coast AM and other UFO media venues. The ultimate goal is two-fold

1. To recruit gullible "True Believers" into a cult.

2. To ultimately debunk all UFO research by later revealing the fraud.

It is absolutely essential that all pro-UFO media people check their stories
with us first so we can at least tell if there is any real technical
information in them. Photos and videos cannot be believed without serious
technical evaluation.

By "us" I include Ray Hudson, Bruce Maccabee, Colin Bennett et-al


But I'm always distrustful of people who are too quick to dismiss.
Criticism is fine, and necessary. But in this case, I think there's some
reason to more open minded than some of us might normally be. The real test
will be if "Isaac" reveals more. It's unrealistic to assume that the people
he allegedly worked for, won't eventually figure out who he is. And if he's
for real, he'll know this and "come out." That would be his best defense
against reprisal. Time will tell. I guess.

So, Isaac, if you're out there monitoring all this, do the right thing and
go public and release everything you have. You'll be protected.



On Jun 27, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


Hi Linda
Again these reports are worthless and I write it off as more attempts to
fool you. Until I see some specific technical information that is startling
pointing to how the thing really flies I am only convinced that there is a
group of conspirators trying very hard to fool you and other key media
people like George Noory and Art Bell. :-)

On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Linda Moulton Howe wrote:


Dear Ray:

Here is an excerpt from an email I received yesterday from a person who has
worked in black projects:

"I can absolutely confirm that black programs are conducted out of
non-descript offices. We were in an office at one point on one program -
however the windows were plywooded, and sound was injected between the
external window and the plywood. From the outside it just looked like dark
smoked glass office windows. It was a fortress.
- the building was extremely well guarded, however, not from a public
standpoint. If someone got past the guard on the outside - not likely, they
would only see a rather standard reception desk. They would get no further
however.

When I was read into one program - I was told to go to a particular dentists
office in las vegas - I did not ask questions. This was a dentists office,
however it was also a polygraph center - AFOSI - cameras, microphones
dropped from the ceiling, and one way mirror room where you could be
observed. I was "hooked up" to the polygraph by a woman who never gave her
name.
- I do have one thing that is perplexing me - In my case you had to poly
"clean" to get out of the program. So espionage was a big big big no no and
being a patriot anyway - and not having the added burden of having been read
into non-terrestrial technology - I of course poly'd clean. However - you
are never officially read off........ the leash remains for your entire
life. Although my primary involvement beside reverse engineering - was
development of low observable technology. because of my involvement - I
was read into most of the programs and had free reign to wander pretty much
where I wished, at the main site. However - I had punches on my badge
except one, and that was "area 8" I was told that this was S4. I will not
speculate - I did not have a need to know - and I learned very early on to
lose my sense of curiosity. My suspicion now however is that we were a layer
or two of the onion "whiter" than other black programs.

On the "X CARET doc's
I saw no portion nor top and bottom classification markings on any of the
doc's - this rings true. Most of our stuff was just marked as "site
sensitive" and nothing more. If its a black program you do not want to draw
attention if something is compromised."


Linda Moulton Howe
Reporter and Editor
www.Earthfiles.com
and Investigative Reporter
Premiere Radio Networks;
Dreamland Online

P. O. Box 21843
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87154


TEL: 505-797-7727
FAX: 505-797-7908


e-mail: earthfiles@...
website: www.earthfiles.com <http://www.earthfiles.com/>




On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:52 AM, RAY HUDSON wrote:



What I am curious about, Linda, is how you would explain-away the obvious
inconsistency that I have pointed out with regards to lack of classification
markings?

I believe this seriously impeaches at least THAT source. But I find this is
a trait of "true believers". they never wish to admit when certain pieces of
the story are impeached. There is NO WAY the kind of work described would
have been performed under the security conditions described without each and
every research report coming out of that group being properly labeled as
classified information. There are other details of safeguards which I
cannot and will not discuss which are also missing if we are to accept that
these documents rise to the level of TOP SECRET.

I appreciate your investigative work, Linda, but only to the point where you
fail to throw-out obvious problematic data as irrelevant.

Ray

_____

From: Linda Moulton Howe [mailto:earthfiles@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:51 AM
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: Dr Harold E Puthoff; Stan Friedman; Creon Levit; S-P Sirag;
Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars; SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; Mark
Pilkington; Nick Cook; nick@...; GRELET CHRISTOPHE;
Vladimir Poponin; colin bennett; caryn anscomb; Dan Smith; Mark Pesses; Kit
Green; Eric Davis; Joe Firmage; askscience@...; Michael Shermer;
bruce maccabee; John Brandenburg; Gary Bekkum; Sharon Weinberger; art
wagner; Paul Murad; Tim Ventura; tom tum; Massimo Teodorani; Diego Lucio
Rapoport; Edgar Mitchell; George Knapp; John Alexander; Bruce Cornet;
ryguy@...; Stephen Broadbent; Kerry Cassidy; Waldyr Jr.;
Joe Stefula; noory George; art; RAY HUDSON; alan parker; Ronald Pandolfi
Subject: From Linda Moulton Howe, June 27, 2007
Importance: High

Am curious, Jack, why you are ignoring the 1987 Barksdale AFB eyewitness of
a dragonfly-shaped "drone" in a hangar; the 1995 Arizona eyewitness near
Heber; the 2005 eyewitness in Sequoia National Park; the 2006 mother and
sons in Yosemite National Park, the Birmingham, Alabama, military
subcontractor eyewitness; and the Northridge, California eyewitness - all
before 2007?

Sincerely,


Linda Moulton Howe
Reporter and Editor
www.Earthfiles.com
and Investigative Reporter
Premiere Radio Networks;
Dreamland Online

P. O. Box 21843
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87154

TEL: 505-797-7727
FAX: 505-797-7908

e-mail: <mailto:earthfiles@...> earthfiles@...
website: <http://www.earthfiles.com/> www.earthfiles.com






On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:



What is obvious now is that there is an elaborate
misinformation/disinformation conspiracy to use Linda Moulton Howe, Coast to
Coast AM and other UFO media venues. The ultimate goal is two-fold

1. To recruit gullible "True Believers" into a cult.

2. To ultimately debunk all UFO research by later revealing the fraud.

It is absolutely essential that all pro-UFO media people check their stories
with us first so we can at least tell if there is any real technical
information in them. Photos and videos cannot be believed without serious
technical evaluation.

By "us" I include Ray Hudson, Bruce Maccabee, Colin Bennett et-al

On Jun 27, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:




Begin forwarded message:

From: "RAY HUDSON" < <mailto:rainman.hudson@...>
rainman.hudson@...>
Date: June 26, 2007 9:24:45 PM PDT
To: "'Jack Sarfatti'" < <mailto:sarfatti@...> sarfatti@...>
Subject: RE: Important from Linda Moulton Howe, June 26, 2007

Jack,

I read thru everything, including the "documents" offered as evidence. The
most glaring inconsistency is what dooms this as yet another hoax:

The author impresses upon us just how tight security was with gun-toting
military officers (and perhaps enlisted folk), not to mention the literal
strip-searches. And yet when you look at the alleged contractor report from
1986 there is not ONE SINGLE CONFIDENTIAL MARKING on this document that
would be required by standard DoD classification requirements. In 1986 I
was working as a new engineer at General Dynamics, Pomona Division on Naval
missile technology. It was when I first was granted a SECRET clearance,
which means that I know what sort of markings should be present on actual
classified documents. These documents show absolutely NONE of those
markings. There is no way this can be real given this inconsistency between
the story and the alleged evidence.

Feel free to pass on,
Ray



On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:




If anyone notices a brilliant but sloppy physicist patrolling the streets of
Baghdad in the next couple weeks, I'd be willing to guess how he got there.
(I kid, of course, as I certainly hope that hasn't actually happened in this
case)


Is he talking about me?

Linda, I took a quick look. Not impressed. I think you and C2C are being
fooled. I see no information that is compelling that this guy's story is not
fiction. :-)
On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:



Thanks Linda. I don't have time right now to focus on this, but will soon.
Of course my bias is disbelief that someone may be feeding you more SERPO
disinformation. I could tell in an instant if I saw some real
physics/technical details.

On Jun 26, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Linda Moulton Howe wrote:



Think the background to the dragonfly-shaped drones has surfaced. According
to this information, it's anti-gravity, cloaking device ET technology. But
still not clear if 2007 "drones" are actual ET technology or result of
American back-engineering.

Please see:

<http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1277&category=Environment>
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1277&category=Environment

<http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1278&category=Environment>
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1278&category=Environment


Would appreciate your feedback,
Linda


Linda Moulton Howe
Reporter and Editor
www.Earthfiles.com
and Investigative Reporter
Premiere Radio Networks;
Dreamland Online

P. O. Box 21843
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87154

TEL: 505-797-7727
FAX: 505-797-7908

e-mail: <mailto:earthfiles@...> earthfiles@...
website: <http://www.earthfiles.com/> www.earthfiles.com


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]