RESPONSES TO WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE - MAY 10, 2001

To: Joel Achenbach. From: Barry Common. Re: Disclosure Project.

Dear Mr. Achenbach, I`m not sure whether to congratulate or criticise you over your tongue in cheek coverage of the Disclosure Project held at the National Press Club on May 9th. It would seem that you alone amongst your peers (Rob Watson-BBC, Michelle Megna-New York Daily News, Julia Duin-Washington Times, David Ruppe-ABC News, Elaine Kihano-CNN and Robert Emero-MSNBC) chose to poke fun at the serious nature of Dr. Stephen Greers efforts to allow twenty or so witnesses to come forward and testify at Congressional hearings on U.F.O.s and extraterrestrial phenomenon. I trust that you have the courage to follow the unfolding events of the Disclosure Project and to keep the public informed of the outcome. There are countless people for whom the media is the only source of information on such subjects, therefore I believe it to be imperative that ridicule not be heaped onto what is already a subject filled with disinformation. Thankyou. Yours Sincerely, Barry Common. Kobe, Japan. bcommon@hotmail.com

From: Kevin Conklin To: achenbachj@washpost.com Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:01 AM Subject: RE: Aliens and UFOs: The Likely Scenario

As someone who has been very interested in this subject for many years, I had mixed feelings when reading your coverage of the Disclosure conference. On one hand, I always feel it is encouraging and a step in the right direction when I see a report on UFOs in the major media. For this reason I commend you for having the courage to report on this event. On the other hand, I was disappointed when you, like so many others in the mainstream media throughout the years, chose to take the easy road toward spin and ridicule when approaching the subject of the reality behind UFOs.

My question to you and others in the media who take your approach in dealing with this subject is this. What harm would it do you or your readers if you were to simply present this in a matter-of-fact spin free manner? If nothing else was proven in yesterday's conference, it was demonstrated that there are many people, some extremely credible in my opinion, who do feel that this is a legitimate issue worthy of legitimate coverage and examination.

As a member of the press you wield the incredible power to shape the conceptions of many in the general public. Until this subject is given the consideration afforded other controversial news subjects and examined by the major media in a truly open minded manner, I fear whatever truth lurks beneath the surface will never see the light of day. Whether or not one believes in the reality of extraterrestrials, it becomes clearer each year that there *is* some government/military involvement with this issue, and there *is* a policy in place at one or more levels which prevents US citizens from getting the entire picture.

Whether those who believe in ET life will eventually be vindicated, or whether there turns out to be a more mundane reason for the secrecy, such as a "smoke screen" to hide conventional military black projects, remains to be seen. In either case, I would hope that you would agree that the public has a right to know. As taxpayers we should be entitled to truth from our government. As a member of the media you have the power to at the very least alert the public to the idea that we may not be getting the complete truth. Without compromising your own beliefs you could make people aware of this subject in a non-judgmental way, and in so doing help people like myself who would like the government to come clean on this issue, regardless of what the full truth entails.

As you said, there are people who believe in things that aren't actually true. Conversely, as anyone who has studied cutting edge science can attest to, there are demonstrably true things that are very hard to believe. This is a complex issue that has been with us for many years. If you really believe that it is up to the public to make the call, then I believe that you and others in your field have a responsibility to give the public a chance to judge based on factual unbiased reporting, rather than stories laced with ridicule and your own, in my opinion, narrow-minded conclusions.

Sincerely, Kevin F. Conklin

From: Paul Griffitts Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: Washington Post article

This is my response to Joel Achenbach's story ...

On May 9th a Washington Post Staff Writer covered a press conference and managed to prove--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that there really are reporters who don't believe in UFOs.

This was a big day for Joel Achenbach [a young blonde?], attempting to promote the myth that UFOs really don't exist. He had arranged an impressive venue, a respected national newspaper with readership in the thousands.

As his story unfolded it became apparent that this was a rather normal report--another attempt to trivialize and ridicule serious reports by credible witnesses of aerial anomalies.

This guy was from the "soft" wing of the media. "Hard" evidence was something he couldn't understand. What he didn't see, evidently, was the point. If he could only cast doubt on some of the witnesses, perhaps that doubt could encompass all of the witnesses! When asked if he could objectively cover a news event, he said, "I could, but it would probably take a lot of time." There are many types of reporters, he said, including Pulitzer Prize winners, "but I'd rather belittle a subject than report on it."

In the category of what a reader would consider evidence of intelligence, the writer presented little, if any. The writing featured Snide Reporting. The message here was that credible people-- people who are not kooks--still cannot be believed because ... well, because they have gray hair ... and because they're reporting things that happened years ago ... and because UFOs simply don't exist! Maybe Joel has a good resume, I can't think of any other reason he's writing for a national newspaper. Maybe that's not as impressive as actually reporting the news, but it's not trivial.

If nothing else this was an interesting glimpse of human psychology and the corrosive side-effects of government disinformation. The writer was smug, in some cases snide-- he's obviously carried this belief for decades.

"Such things do not exist. Please believe me," implied Joel Achenbach, who has never seen a UFO and therefore does not believe in their reality.

There are probably more stories coming. There are people saying Joel wants to write a story about ghosts, and one about leprechauns. Who's running this newspaper? Who's making these assignments? The bad guys are everywhere.

Our anxiety grows: What if Joel is allowed to continue writing stories!

What if we'll all be subjected to more such reportage!

How do we know Joel really does have a degree in journalism?

Readers of Joel's article would very much liked to have found a single scrap of objective reporting. They'd like to know if he knows the meaning of the word "science." They'd like to know if the testimony of credible (albeit gray-haired) witnesses (including former astronauts) really does mean nothing. They'd like to know if he really thinks that the testimony of over 400 such witnesses should be ignored simply because such things can't exist.

Oh ... sorry. Got off on one of those damn "reasonable expectation" tangents.

We have to decide, as rational readers, which is the more likely scenario:

1. Intelligent, credible witnesses--many of whom have direct, firsthand knowledge--have come forward to offer their testimony to the on-going government cover-up of UFOs. Exposing themselves to public ridicule because they believe so strongly in what they have to say--under oath, and before Congress and the entire nation.

2. Joel Achenbach is an intelligent, objective reporter who would never dream of demeaning, defaming, or making snide remarks about people who believed in something he didn't.

You make the call. Ignorance is bliss. (But it's not particularly impressive.)

Paul L. Griffitts Portland, Oregon 97213

Dear Joel,

If only one percent of what Dr. Greer is saying is true, it is terribly unfortunate that a journalist such as yourself would use his writing talents to convey a cynical undertone to an issue that should be taken seriously, if for no other reason than the immensity of the potential effects to mankind. Namely, the importance of new technology and new clean sources of energy. We are not talking about little green men here. We are talking about saving this planet for our children.

Either you have no conscience or are totally irresponsible - or are influenced by very special interests. Or is it all three?

Warmest regards, Tim Patrick

Subj: national press club et/ufo column/calumny Date: 5/10/01 10:56:16 AM Central Daylight Time From: Kelmart To: achenbachj@washpost.com

Dear Joel:

I found your musings about yesterday's national press club event about the witnesses to ET/UFO events demeaning, disingenuous, and full of the tired old knee-jerk mainstream media response to this discussion. Your transparent calumny I'm sure plays well at the Post. I imagine that it's quite popular throughout the beltway and now online, and elicits a response that my four-year-old son is fond of, "Ha-ha, verrrrry stoopid!"

Character assassination, selective reporting, ridicule and outright ignorance of the facts have been a hallmark of media coverage about this issue. Congratulations, you made the cut, again.

Now you can get another book deal and laugh (all the way to the bank, as they say in the finance world and inside black budget programs) -- along with your uninformed readers in the sequel.

Eventually, however, the hardest laughs will be those laughing not with you but at you when this controversial issue is finally brought to light and with the proper reporting of it.

In the meantime, I suggest you read Terry Hansen's new book, "The Missing Times: News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up", or Richard Dolan's heavily researched book on national security issues from World War One to the present day: "UFOs and the National Security State." Or the even more basic work by one of this nation's military heroes, Lt. Colonel Philip Corso: "The Day After Roswell," which confirms everything you love to mock and undermine with cheap shots, witty one liners and that hollow refrain of yours', "where's the science?"

Where are the so-called hard news reporters and glib DC columnists to challenge openly in media without agenda or innuendo the opinions and facts when books such as these are published?

May a large unacknowledged object hover over your newsroom and/or your dog -- and go unreported.

Bored with the likes of you in Minneapolis,

Martin Keller

From: R Mahabeer Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 3:25 AM Subject: Response to Washington Post article

Copy of Letter to the Editor, Washington Post (sent by e-mail, early morning, 14 MAY 01):

Aliens and UFOs: The REAL Thing

This letter is in response to Joel Achenbach's May 9th Rough Draft column ["Aliens and UFOs: The Likely Scenario"]. I urge all readers of the Washington Post to see the truth for themselves...watch the archived webcast of the May 9th Disclosure Project Press Briefing at www.disclosureproject.org

If I ever doubted the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrials, no more! How can anyone, especially a journalist such as Joel Achenbach, actually LISTEN to such a panel of highly-accredited individuals give such obviously honest and real testimony, and still turn his back on such a serious issue? These individuals have no reason to make up their stories. In fact, their reputations, professional licenses, and in many cases, their very lives are at risk in coming forward to present this evidence.

Though Mr. Achenbach recounted portions of the press briefing accurately, the manner in which he chose to present the event and various testimony twisted and spun a very serious message into a barely worthwhile and comedic affair. Why could he not show the decency of reporting this groundbreaking event simply as it actually happened? Instead, he wanted to ridicule, minimize, and poke fun - I mean, come on, "Chef Boyardee Saucers and Aliens"?! Have a little respect!

Mr. Achenbach chose to paint a picture of old-fogies telling ancient history from decades ago. I ask, what about the other testimony from the eighties and nineties? Did he purposely forget that, as well as the younger men and the women that testified? I also ask, does it make any difference WHEN these individuals saw and experienced what they did? If they were part of a Top Secret alien crash recovery team and saw crashed ships and alien bodies years ago does that somehow make aliens and UFOs not real and not exist because it didn't happen just last week? All that matters is that it DID happen, and they were THERE, and they SAW, and they helped HIDE THE EVIDENCE from YOU and ME. Now they have been courageously assembled at a press conference, and they are there to tell the world the truth, and we should all shut-up and listen!

Dr. Steven Greer, the Disclosure Project organizer, asked the Media to assist them in bringing these issues of real evidence of aliens and UFOs and of corresponding Government cover-ups to Congress, by treating this matter openly and frankly, and reporting it HONESTLY, and not (as the press has done in the past) by ridiculing the whole thing. The population at large needs to be made aware of what these compartmentalized Government "Black Projects" have been hiding for fifty-plus years.

I would have expected to find an article about this HISTORY MAKING press conference on your front page, or at least in your science section, but in a humor column?? I am disgusted by how the Washington Post has chosen to report this event, and dismayed that it apparently wishes to further assist these Government "Black Projects", by maintaining the status quo through encouraging readers to continue sticking their heads in the sand. Ridicule is a powerful weapon: controlling the masses through fear of reproach for stepping out of the "socially acceptable". Sorry, but the truth is REALLY out there now, this is not just a matter of one's "beliefs", Mr. Achenbach - this is WAY past just believing in something or not - these brave individuals have seen and experienced actual events, these are FACTS, not beliefs!! Hopefully Washington Post readers were smart enough to see through Mr. Achenbach's misguided sense of humor, and view the real McCoy. The Disclosure Project is something whose time has come, and I'm betting now that the cat's out of the bag, public pressure won't let it back in.

Alison L. Mahabeer Canada

From: Robert W Teeters To: achenbachj@washpost.com Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 10:25 AM Subject: Disclosure Project

You obviously were not there Joel. All their asking is for open and fair hearings. These gray haired old men, as you referred to them(were you making an attempt at humor) retired from the military and other government agencies risk a great deal standing up in front of the media and saying what they did. You forgot to mention several of them were the same guys we trusted to keep their fingers on the button so we could sleep a little better at night. There were men we trusted with million dollar fighter aircraft. There were men who are still active duty, officers at that. Trained observers, technicians, and members of the government intelligence agencies. Oh, I forgot to mention they all had Top Secret security clearances and above. If you had actually been there you would have known that the purpose of the conference was to introduce them, the kind of information they were willing to disclose, and a brief snippet of their personal experiences. Had you taken the time out of your very busy schedule of trying to ridicule and discredit very brave and patriotic United States citizens, people who served and are now serving our country, you would have attended the meeting that followed. There you would have seen much of the hard evidence they had to offer. I'm sure if you contact Dr. Greer he would be more than happy to supply you with video tape and documents concerning the Disclosure Project. Better yet, arrange for an interview. All you need is an open mind. Come on, you must have been a real journalist at one time. I'm sure you once wanted to report the truth. Wasn't there a real rush back then as a young reporter digging out the truth, reporting it and letting the chips fall where they may. You know, someday the truth is going to finally be recognized and someone is going to pull out you obviously contrived and ridicules statements and comments on your coverage of the Disclosure Project. Aren't you going to feel silly? I bet you will. Had you been there you would realize just how silly you look now after putting you name to the completely incompetent comments you published in your narrow minded zeal to discredit these people. By the way, there are several hundred more witnesses of the same caliber available for you to sift through. The next time try adding their titles, specialties, the kinds of experiences and documentation they have to offer, the branches of government they served in, their security clearances, and the kind of risk they've put themselves, their families, their reputations and their careers in. Come on guy, I have faith in ya! You can do the right thing. I'm sure there are lots of people who know who you are and read what you say. You owe you reading public a fair open minded analyses of this very important event. Isn't that what it's all about?

Respectfully, Robert W. Teeters

Letters and comments posted on the End Secrecy Yahoo Group Message Board