Combat Diary Number 4

In which Panzerben answers accusations of verbal flatulence from Mr Richard Hall and brings the MJ12 papers into the discussion.

From: Colin Bennett <>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 03:19:34 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:24:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Bennett

>From: Richard Hall
>To: <>
>Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:04:54 +0000
>Subject: Re: Corso -- Hall

>You are so wrong in this that it's pitiful, but our eyes cross and our minds boggle with your typical long-winded flatulence.

I do like the Royal Plural, Richard. But perhaps you are getting ideas above your station. Does the plural refer to your partner in arms, now apparently fled from the Corso battlefield in tears to stamp his little foot in the dark, somewhere? Don't fret, you're just not used to this kind ofopposition, that's all.What Cromwell said of Parliament can be said of the bearded sages and gurus of "scientific" Ufology: "thou hast sate too long". Richard, you have made a great contribution to Ufology. But I intend to do the same, and (as dear Wendy Connors would say) "I ain't your style". A new kid on the block always arouses the same response. Well boys (I use the plural) if you want a fight you've picked a wrong one. But with one guru fled in tears, and the other in a bit of a cursing swoon, I asked myself what happened to American balls?

In the meantime, whilst you are both (I use the plural) recovering, Ufology needs a new vision. And I am going to make bloody sure it gets one.

Flatulence? Is that all you can say about my original post on the Corso business? Come now Richard Hall, you can do better than that. You scream constantly for "evidence" yet you don't comment about what I meant by a mythological text in detail, referring to it as breaking wind? This is not the response of an intelligent person you undoubtedly are. But every time I post to this List I get complaints from Americans that the words are too long, or my sentences contain more than one clause, or my reasoning is over-extended, or that I mention a lot of old books that no-one born after 1945 appears to have heard of. Also, any kind of philosophical depth or abstract reasoning is described as "farting", "verbal salad" or "long winded", and there have een requests for aspirin, and complaints about the costs of new reading lenses and new dictionaries! Is this the nation of the Alamo and Okinawa?

Now we have the rather blushing euphemism "flatulence" from you, Richard Hall, of all people. I am surprised at such language from a scion of a family such as yours, sir. The next time you speak to me sir, have some respect for both the dignity of your lineage (as posted on your site), and the dignity of both myself and the mixed company of this List. You might also like to bear in mind that I am not a man to be intimidated by swearing or bluster. As for bullies, I eat them with my post-toasties, pick my teeth with their bones, and fling the remains to my pit-bull mastiffs. Unlike Mr. Aldrich or your good self I am big enough
to be laughed at or satirized, but to be the target of playground effluvia from his defenders says more about the abusers than myself. We only swear in such a manner when we are at a loss for words and have momentarily lost our skills of expression. It is a great wonder indeed that Mr. Aldrich appears not to have the nerve or the courage to come out and defend himself instead of letting yourself and others do his fighting for him. Now he chooses to sulk in his lair like a spoilt brat who didn't get what he wanted for Christmas.

>You denigrate those of us who base our arguments on facts,
>evidence, logic, and scientific method. Then what else is there?
>Shall we believe whatever we prefer?

You would have people believe certain things and not others? Are you some kind of enforcer?

>How, under your [non]system shall we evaluate anything about
>UFOs? Shall we simply say, well, I like the sound of that idea
>and it seems agreeable to me?

You are ignoring the postmodern view. There is no need to be afraid of postmodernism. It is all very simple. Drama schools for example use improvisations again and again to examine the dimensions of situations that human beings spin around themselves and their experiences. It really doesn't matter
whether you call it improvisation or deconstruction, what postmodernism does is show is that human are always into game- situations, of which "factual objectivity" is but one game. Try claiming "factual objectivity" before a group of enthusiastic drama students a nd it will be only a few minutes before you are weeping dust, guaranteed, big time! When Ufology grows up, it will have to undergo these ordeal by fire experiences and the cloistered factspiel monks had better bring along a pack of good diapers. Talking about growing up, there is a typical change of paradigm occurring before our very eyes, described very well by Greg Sandow in his recent post:

>>There's a lot to be said for the cultural analysis of ideas.
>>That's the grain of truth when Colin Bennett carries on about postmodern this and that. Every idea has a cultural history.
>>Everybody is predisposed to believe some things and disbelieve others, simply because of the culture they're part of. Or, more precisely, the subculture, because obviously the western culture most of us here belong to has many offshoots and variants. There aren't any neutral ideas, culturally speaking.
>>But on the other hand, there really is such a thing as objective truth.

Postmodernism doesn't demolish the pain and blood of a fist in the face! It is more a method of analyzing the advertisements that make up an event. It takes down the personal and social screens, and is a method of opening deep contextual background and seeing the fist in the face as the end of a very complex process that fact cannot enter. For instance when science reduces a bus going down a hill full of fighting drunks and policemen and junkies trying to exit via the luggage compartment to a point moving down an inclined plane, don't we feel think that something is wrong with such a description? What does science say here? You are being statistically measured, so don't worry? What does postmodernism say? Postmodernism says that the event as an experience is being ripped off, that's what postmodernism says. It shows so-called innocent "factually objective" events as a means of mass alienation: it strips this bus event of all colour, identity, individuality, and drama and not a little love. Reduced to nothing, the event is stolen from us, it is effectively denatured as a means of knowing. As a writer for Philosophy Now magazine, I must say that there are also deeper issues about science and society that I don't intend to go into here (sighs of relief all round, methinks!). Suffice it to say that statistics and cultural reduction to points down an inclined plane as certain reductive "cleansing" process are applied don't exactly have a good PR as far as Greg Sandow's particular culture and religion go. For myself, whenever I hear the word "statistics" I become a Jew, shuffling in a line with Greg, towards those places whose names are legion.

But to more cheerful matters. As I have described in detail in previous posts, Corso's book is a mythological text, and the "factual" doings and sayings of the author are irrelevant. It will be read as Swift's Gulliver's Travels are read, and interpreted in just such a manner as a symbolic work of its age in terms of social controversy and the politics of scientific and technological belief systems. Many of those who criticize
Corso are utterly incapable of writing such a significant book, and are content to pile up "facts" like cans of beans in a warehouse. All good books are dangerous. Let's have more of them.

>As I have observed many times before in the arguments of those who reject scientific method, what is your alternative?

You mean to tell me you don't know of any alternative way of coming to knowledge than applying the scientific method? Have you heard of Shakespeare? Have you heard of Literature and the Arts, have you heard of receiving truth through Music and Painting? Have you not heard of meditation, insight, mysticism, inspiration, the coming of truth through love? Have you not heard of coming to knowledge through the experience of mercy, compassion, irrational insights?

>If you argue that there is nothing even resembling an approximation to truth that can be established in that way, then you basically are a nihilist and there is no reason whatsoever to take anything you say seriously. Why should we? What is it based on.

This is not nihilism. Have you never received truth through reading a poem or seeing a play? There are no facts in the scientific sense there at all. I refer to moral truth. Moral truth may or may not have anything to do with facts. Just go to a Court first thing Monday morning, and you will see exactly what I mean. There you will see a million versions of "reality" in one hour. In this sense, Corso's book is a very moral book.

>Given an unknowable universe, why should we even try to understand it by asking critical questions, trying to establish facts, and applying logic and reason to them?

Have you never ever met a person who did not know as much as you, was not as clever or well-educated as you, did not have as much knowledge as yet was your moral superior?

With this mind, let's just take a look at what your beloved scientific method has done to planet Earth. You sir, are supporting a philosophy whose technological application has polluted air, sea, earth and water. On the animal and indeed human experimentation issue alone, scientists have absolutely no moral stand at all. Whenever I hear the words "scientific enlightenment" I reach for my (non-existent) gun.

You talk about science almost in a lowered reverential voice, Richard, and still appear to be a scientific innocent. I know that tone of voice. You have been abducted by a social process.
You need intellectually re-birthing. Sorry Richard, but factual objectivity is yet another god-game. That must come as a terrible disappointment to you, but without realizing that you remain in the blushing hopeful school sixth form. Deconstruction means that we must detox on occasion our most fundamental belief systems that we have like tree-rings within us. To help you in this process, take a look at science over the past half-century.
Ever since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring forty years ago, the bookshops have had lines of books showing that science (which means inevitably State and consequently orporate science) is identical with corruption and conspiracy. What price evidence-based factual objectivity after the MKULTRA and Enron scandals alone? You still have faith in science do you Richard, when we all live in late Rome, and intellectual shame is alone demonstrated by animal experimentation, never mind little things such as the destruction of the environment. I can't wait for the next scientific "breakthrough", the next "advance" of the well- scrubbed scientific hero-soldiers. For years I listened to the soap operas of their inevitable victories (they never failed) coming as it were from Big Brother loudspeakers on street corners, and now since science has been totally discredited, I don't listen any more. The game is played out. The UFO is in town. It's a better bet.

>>There's a lot to be said for the cultural analysis of ideas.
>>That's the grain of truth when Colin Bennett carries on about postmodern this and that. Every idea has a cultural history.
>>Everybody is predisposed to believe some things and disbelieve others, simply because of the culture they're part of.

What does postmodernism mean? It means scratch the "Mr. Clean" surface of the advertising display, and you find creepy crawly things underneath. I notice that as concerns the Corso issue we are not discussing, the equally fantastic claims in the books of Nick Pope and Nick Cook. They, for example are not mentioned.
Nor are Whitely Streiber's fascinating recent discussions of the possibility that present-day UFOs are full of Nazis, God forbid! Perhaps Richard you don't have the nerve to call these writers liars because they are alive and well, can take care of themselves, and can afford lawyers. How about applying your scientific method to them, come what may?

Call the writer of the Foreword to Stanton's Top Secret Majic a liar, and you will wonder what has hit you. Is that the reason why we are debating the claims of Corso, and not the claims of Streiber, who has also written equally significant books of our time, containing material as equally controversial as that in Corso's book? Come now Richard, what are you afraid of?

It is a very strange business when Stanton invites Streiber to write his Foreword, yet calls Corso a liar, when there are countless documents abroad on the web accusing Stanton himself of being a liar in turn as regards both the MJ12 and the Roswell affairs. Stanton for example has been taken to task on this very List in the past for claiming a particular security classification he admits he did not have at the time. He said on this List that he did not know how such a claim got into his book, Majic 12. Being a postmodernist, I have several options (and thinking is all about options) than to call him a liar. I don't think this amounts to much as hypocrisy on Stanton's part, but it is an ironic reminder on how quickly the ground can shift. I think for instance as a student of MJ12, Stanton was being taught a Trickster lesson about a broken connection between texts and minds he will never forget. Everybody knows the feeling. The observer has been observed. You are never alone with imitation of an imitation. This is postmodernism in action.

Such a meaningful coincidence was once part of a full dialogue with Nature that we have forgotten. It is now a cultural fragment to be brushed into the pan and throw away as almost meaningless. It was once a full trail, but now it is fallen to glimpses and echoes, flashes of insight, and traces of what was once a fully live intuition. Or perhaps the MJ12 Effect itself was playing games with Stanton. When we talk about alien intelligence, we must be prepared to think right out of the box and right out of the box again and yet again. They won't just be better at solving partial differential equations than we are.

I myself don't think either Stanton or Corso are liars, I think that as authors both tell different aspects of the same tale: that there has been a landing, that there has been contact etc.
I myself, having had a UFO experience, have no problem in believing these things. Given my own experience, I see the difference between Stanton and Corso as not the difference between truth and fiction, but the understandable confusions between interpretation of what may be an extremely complex state of affairs involving many different alien cultures a b and c etc and their separate agendas and advertising systems. One level could have told lies to Adamski and quite a different level could have told a different set of lies to Corso and indeed Streiber. This sounds more like paganism and Greek polytheism than anything else (read George Hanson, Patrick Harpur, and Jacques Vallee), and perhaps what we are doing is reconstructing our lost relationship with the Pantheon of Mount Olympus after more than 2000 years of destructive monotheism. In this respect, with regard to many of the things that Corso describes, "they" may have partially initiated lots of things and not finished them. With regard to many of the things that Stanton has so notably investigated, there is another question. Given the acceptance of an alien presence dead or alive, anywhere at all, then surely that increases the possibility of alien interference in at least some element of human culture. Which brings us at least a little nearer to the questions about the origin of the cold-junction amplifier that has changed all life on planet Earth. In this respect, Stanton's surprisingly simplistic accusation of lying is hardly worthy of the author of two of the best UFO books we have in the canon. But he must look forward.
We should all be moving towards fuzzy approximations than old industrial certainties. In a media age, these have gone with spark, steam, and hammer metaphors. The Y2K and MJ12 phenomena cannot be understood in such desperately old-fashioned terms. In a world become pure media and advertising fact and fiction are hard and soft sells. If that blows up a lot of old mechanistic arguments here on this List, I don't care. Yes I agree that Corso's claim to have met aliens down mines is almost as risible as Adamski's meeting with Orthon the Venusian. But when we consider the daunting and complex games that alien intelligence(s) could be into, we might well think about multi-dimensional media-manipulation, as indeed many UFO researchers have done, but not on this somewhat dour and sober List full of mechanicals.

The objections to Corso's claims come from a fundamental human need to disbelieve. And some people will disbelieve anything.
Levels of belief in any case are good schlock- advertising, and the "factually objective" schlock advertising is some of the best Fortean entertainment you can get. Like God, the physicists change the commercial breaks with less frequency than TV, but they're catching up. Even the very dated cultural advertising is good for a laugh, like the penny- farthing bicycle. On this List for example, matter is still "solid" and science itself got rid of this idea over a hundred years ago. No modern physicist would talk of matter being solid. Why do folk still talk in such a way? Because it still sells, that's why. It's cheap and cheerful, easy luggage for the brain. You don't want to take Einstein and Planck on every trip, now do you? Acceptance depends not on the ludicrous yes or no of binary colonization, but on the degree of fantasy involved in various claims. This degree is directly proportional to the level of acceptance. For instance, many people think that the MJ12 business is as ludicrous as Adamski's meeting with Orthon.

In postmodern thinking, style, rather than fact is often the key to such acceptance levels, and is a good way assessing the significance of these levels. History hardly turns on factual considerations. Just like Hollywood, more does history turn on image and status, power, ego, and yes, that scientific demon called the irrational act. Stanton for instance is the much more acceptable cool low-key discursive thinker, and Corso is hot, impulsive, nervous and uncompromising. In other words Stanton's PR was always much better managed. Also, MJ12 is much more cool an affair than Adamski's Orthon claim, and say, David Icke's lizards. If there was ever a yuppy mystery worth the name, the MJ12 hunt is it. It is the ultimate in Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests, and I have sent a copy to Tom Wolfe. He would love the games played here, where one statement, equally as fantastic as another, is described as "false" compared to another that is described as "real".

What is the difference? Answer: Style Wars!

The situation described as such gets us out of the dreadful rut described again and again in which Stanton (imaged as the cool clever guy who knows his way around) calls Corso (imaged as a bit of a mendacious hayseed) a liar.

It is all a matter not so much of the old-fashioned deterministic meccano-industrial idea of "factual" differences here much as a matter of style and theatre and imaging and personal projection. Wolfe would love all this. Like the software of the sceptic-versus believer opposition, this whole business of accusations is an advertising war. This corresponding-parity relationship can be found in Starsky and Hutch, Darwin and Huxley, and even Bennett and Hall. Stanton is the antidote to Corso in terms of suggestion, psychology, performance, and staging, witness the video Is Stanton Friedman Real? Stanton obviously thoroughly enjoyed his limelight, but Corso might have pulled his gun and shot the crew thinking they were communists.

The postmodern view gets us out of this endlessly frustrating business of who is in the right and who is in the wrong. What we have is a contrasting fabric in which both men and their corresponding cultures are seen in context, and not in do or die opposition.

So when Richard Hall asks me what I use as an analytical tool, I give him this example.

Therefore away with those who say Corso's The Day After Roswell is a book by a silly and confused man, an under-promoted little runt with an ego problem who lied his way through life. It is in its way a brilliant book. It has a deeply romantic aura, an almost gothic view of the military-industrial complex. A reader almost expects black bats to fly out of computer screens. You can sit down and actually read Corso which is more than you can say of the published manuals (hardly to be called books) of many researchers, a good number of whom have replaced weekend bridge- parties as one of the great bores of the age, to run away from like the proverbial greased lightening.

Corso's book is as full of shapes and rumours and shadows and half-lit scenes as a Bosche painting. Like Captain Edward J. Ruppelt's The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Corso's book is one of the few books by a serving officer to lift the curtain on a truly fantastic world. His work reminds us of that other big bad book of the 1960s, The Morning of the Magicians by Pawel and Bergier, which met with similar reception from the vast hosts of the mundane zombies. There is a lot of envy and resentment here because Corso, like Stanton, has written one of the most successful and significant UFO books for many years, and in doing so has completely confounded and annoyed the dozing mandarins of the Ufological establishment who are still scratching the bottom of a dead parrot's cage for the forgotten numbers of lost document boxes.

>>>I believe, like Colin Bennett said in one of his original and very thoughtful and interesting works on this list [2], like American novelist Toni Morrison, (with my changes) Ed, 'you listen and let the trail talk to you'. Others may like to take the time to listen and follow your trail.

Nick Cook lets the trail talk to him, but how his book would be demolished on this List, especially by those who have not written any books at all! Similarly, The Day After Roswell is full of excitement and adventure, magic and imagination, all those things hated like poison by the "scientific" Ufologists. As in the books of Georgina Bruni, Jenny Randles, and Linda Moulton Howe (how I wish these brilliant women would appear again on this List to put all the dull prosaic monkish-men to shame!), there is a creepy atmosphere you never forget. Like these women writers, Corso has a vision of things beyond simple- minded factoid accounts, and there is a sore lack of that in so- called "scientific" Ufology. Politically, like the skeptics, the monkish researchers in turn want to control the raising of the cultural curtain. That's politics of the imagination for you, folks! The pity of it is that the po-faced commissar- researchers, as distinct from the (now almost forgotten) forlorn skeptics, know that there is not so much nothing going off, but too much going off.

>>>>Thank you and post modernism. I knew there must be some way out of here!

So-called "scientific ufology" has now become a cult, complete with Maoist show-trials of the dialectical deviants. The beloved "facts" are now being pursued in many cases purely for its own sake, piled up on the web sites like Kafka's sandcastles. These are the first post-industrial slag heaps of cyberspace.

I thank Mr. Sandow, Mr. Gerhman, and Mr. Auchettl for their support, and their detailed and considered responses to my defence of Lieutenant Colonel Philip Corso's book The Day After Roswell.
I thank also Richard Hall for his determined opposition. I would like to thank Jan Aldrich, but he has, as we Brits say, done a bunk.  would like also to thank the many people who have got in touch with me privately concerning the Corso matters discussed in previous posts.

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett

My posts are now available as Combat Diaries on and may appear later in the
year in a published form, with full acknowledgements to Virtually Strange. This posting is Combat Diary Number 4

Next page