From: Ray Dickenson <ray.dickenson.nul>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 18:10:14 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:51:53 -0400
Subject: Re: UK MoD BS - Dickenson


>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:04:48 -0400
>Subject: Re: UK MoD BS

>I haven't been critical on the List, but I believe that
>everyone jumped on this the way they jumped on the AA 'film' in
>1995 and have helped to create the myth that they purport to
>want to clear up.

<snip>

Hi Steven,

When assessing releases, especially 'drip-by-drip' pre-releases
(or apparent leaks), it seems there are three possible
'political' reasons -

a) to determine (strong) public opinion - officialdom can then
  amend its position;

b) to draw out opposition, by concealing key facts which are
  then used to discredit;

c) to create convincing cover - see below.

In The Spy And His Masters, Chris Felix (OSS - CIA?) laid out
the rules for releasing cover stories:

"To be too precise in a cover story qualitatively increases the
chances of repudiation of the story; to be too detailed
increases those chances quantitatively. To speak out too fast is
to show your hand before you know all you can about what your
opponent is holding in his; and to tell all in one bleat
eliminates your chances to improvise as the situation develops"

He went on to compare the failure of the U2 cover story with
MI6's successful deception (of UK public) over the Buster Crabbe
affair.

http://www.answers.com/topic/lionel-crabb

(First Crabbe was 'on leave', then 'other duties', then 'a known
motorcyclist', then 'in accident elsewhere' - then silence.
Felix commented admiringly - "following their single protest,
the Russians dropped the matter" - presumably because UK public
opinion had been thoroughly defused by the deception.)

As you see, that's the opposite of scientific method of
presenting evidence.


reference- 'The Spy and His Masters' (1963) by C. Felix,
pp. 71 & 72


Cheers

Ray D