tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post642242884029246009..comments2023-08-15T01:24:39.187-03:00Comments on The Other Side of Truth: What The Public Doesn't Know... Vol. IPaul Kimballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-44020243535751852252008-08-11T08:57:00.000-03:002008-08-11T08:57:00.000-03:00PaulAgain, I have to take issue with your presenta...Paul<BR/><BR/>Again, I have to take issue with your presentation here. Context is indeed important but when you state that Sarbacher "casually leaked" the information, you suggest he was irresponsible. The fact is that this liaison remained secret for many years, demonstrating Smith's reliability in maintaining secrecy. I believe that there was some form of approved backchannel liaison between the two countries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-69674653879298032252008-08-11T08:52:00.000-03:002008-08-11T08:52:00.000-03:00Paul"If what you suggest was true, and the informa...Paul<BR/><BR/>"If what you suggest was true, and the information he gave Smith was legitimate, then Sarbacher would have been executed for treason... "<BR/><BR/>I don't think so. Only a fool who wanted to make the secret public would've committed to that track.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-59608649718026929692008-08-11T08:46:00.000-03:002008-08-11T08:46:00.000-03:00PaulMilitary rank is no guarantee to 'need to know...Paul<BR/><BR/>Military rank is no guarantee to 'need to know' secrets. There is no reason why Smith could not have been read in to such a program. His particular skills are what would have counted, not his 'rank'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-23305492212665393142008-07-25T16:40:00.000-03:002008-07-25T16:40:00.000-03:00All am I saying is that the world is not perfect. ...All am I saying is that the world is not perfect. Leaks DO occur. Even you admit that at that time Canada was leaking as a sieve. Therefore, why do you absolutely deny the possibility that the USA was naturally leaking just a little bit?<BR/><BR/>I, "ETH facter" (as you may would call me), consider the world as being imperfect. In an imperfect world leaks DO occur, people DO make mistakes, people DO absurd things frequently, people DO sympathize mutually even if they are hierarchically related or unrelated, human aircraft DO crash probably almost every day, cars DO crash probably almost every minute, ET craft may crash sometimes (may be rarely), etc. Is there any problem in considering the world as imperfect?<BR/><BR/>Regarding your concern, you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"you can't on the one hand say that people take their secrecy oaths seriously, even today, and then suggest on the other hand that a man who had information about the biggest secret ever would have casually leaked it to a guy like Smith (and here it is absolutely relevant to discuss, and understand, who Smith was and what he did)”<BR/><BR/>Your arguments seem extremely strange to me. For instance, If Friedman was to believe that ALL the military personnel was firmly decided to NOT tell a single word about UFOs he certainly wouldn't even bothered to interview Jesse Marcel, or Colonel Dubose, etc. Sincerely, I believe you have a logic problem here. (Friedman was in MENSA, so I think he has no trouble with logic). <BR/><BR/>Indeed, I am convinced that secrets can be kept. They can be kept precisely due to strict rules, obedient men, etc. But I also know of many secrets that have not been kept. I know that some secrets have been broken by painstaking efforts of spies and researchers who search for the weaker link in the chain! And secrets that have been broken simply by mistakes of the people charged with keeping those secret. No contradictions here. Smith or Sarbacher were presumably some sort of weaker link, or someone made a mistake. The task of a researcher is to find such weaker links. No contradiction here.<BR/><BR/>In order to finish, in this Smith’s particular case, it is your person who is not accepting the Smith’s documents at their very face value, therefore the burden of proof is on you, to demonstrate what is the hidden value of Smith documents (be it some disinformation campaign against Russians or something of the sort).Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-49443743680831112292008-07-25T00:20:00.000-03:002008-07-25T00:20:00.000-03:00Don,Regarding the reason that moved Sarbacher to g...Don,<BR/><BR/><I>Regarding the reason that moved Sarbacher to give info to Smith, it is matter of pure speculation. World and people are not perfect. Rules are not always followed. May be just happened that Smith asked for the info in a kindly and friendly way.</I><BR/><BR/>This is patently ridiculous. Again, it's all about the context, which non-historians, like Stan, and you it seems, have a lot of trouble with. This was the beginning of the Cold War, and a secret that was supposedly two points higher than the H-Bomb. It was a time when the United States was <I>executing</I> people who gave away information about the H-Bomb, and yet you suggest that Sarbacher would have just told Smith this because he was being friendly. Oh my.<BR/><BR/>Further, the one thing I agree with Stan on is his mantra that "you can't tell your friends without telling your enemies". True enough... particularly in Canada at the time, which leaked like a sieve (google "Gouzenko affair"). Again, it's all about context. <BR/><BR/>If what you suggest was true, and the information he gave Smith was legitimate, then Sarbacher would have been executed for treason... unless he had been officially authorized to give that information to Smith (extremely unlikely, given who Smith was), or - and this is the likeliest explanation - it was not true, and so there was nothing Sarbacher could be prosecuted for.<BR/><BR/>You and Stan can't have it both ways, however - you can't on the one hand say that people take their secrecy oaths seriously, even today, and then suggest on the other hand that a man who had information about the biggest secret <I>ever</I> would have casually leaked it to a guy like Smith (and here it is <I>absolutely</I> relevant to discuss, and understand, who Smith was and what he did).<BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-23733416878374188932008-07-24T23:57:00.000-03:002008-07-24T23:57:00.000-03:00Paul:Not very relevant data, in my opinion.I think...Paul:<BR/><BR/>Not very relevant data, in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>I think the point here is not in the fact that Smith did run or did not run a supersecret saucer study, or what was the real usefulness of the project he run. I think the relevant point here is that he received info that confirmed that Vannevar Bush was studying saucers in U.S.A. I feel the important country here is USA, not Canada (I am sorry).<BR/><BR/>Regarding the reason that moved Sarbacher to give info to Smith, it is matter of pure speculation. World and people are not perfect. Rules are not always followed. May be just happened that Smith asked for the info in a kindly and friendly way. On the other hand, Sarbacher may have had heard just rumors, so perhaps he had not been pressed at the moment by any silence rule, or secret oath. Or may be simply he found that Smith was friendly enough, and decided to tell him. The fact is that the info was given. As Stan says in his book, the Fact that you do not know how digestion works does not mean that you can not eat and use the energy and nutrients of the food. Stan is right.<BR/><BR/>Putting to questions: ¿What would be the reason to make the russians know about USA studies on flying saucers and saucer technology? What would be the reason to release to russians some info that is more secret than the H bomb ? May be USA wanted to be immediately infested with russian spyes?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.com