Wednesday, January 21, 2015


About those Blue Book UFO files... UPDATED

Ryan Mullahy‎ posted the following in the Facebook group UFO UpDates:

So the UFO researchers in this group are really going to sit silently while "UFO researchers" and "journalists" re-write UFO history for the sake of promoting a website? The Truth About The Project Blue Book Files: 
-          The Blue Book files have been available to the public since 1976 or earlier in physical archives.
 -          50,000 Project Blue Book documents have been available on line at Archivist Rebecca Wise's Project Blue Book Archive since January 2005. 
-          fold.3 has had 129,658 Project Blue Book files online since 2008.
-           I guess to Alejandro Rojas 6 years is "a few years."…/project_blue_book_ufo_investigations/ 
Alejandro Rojas also inaccurately claims in his article that users have to pay a fee to download Project Blue Book Files from fold.3. This is untrue. A user only has to create a free account on fold.3 in order to download Project Blue Books documents. (Alejandro has since added a note to his article correcting himself about downloading from fold.3.) At least Kevin Randle had the guts to speak up. 
Both Project Blue Book Archive and fold.3 have been amazing resources to me as a researcher for years, as they should be to any serious researcher, and I don't think Project Blue Book Archive or fold.3 deserve to be misrepresented and to have their contribution swept under the rug in a wave of misinformation like this. 
It's great that there is another online source for the Project Blue Book documents, and I have no issue with the Black Vault, but this announcement shouldn't come at a cost of misleading and untrue news stories and a quasi re-writing of UFO history for the sake of a titillating news headline and the promotion of a website.

For the record, I have been answering many questions from media and UFO fans about this. Tempests and teapots come to mind.

Many people are pointing out: "But at least it gets everyone talking about UFOs, and in major media!"

Of course, that's the same argument about why Tweeting "disclosure" to politicians is a valid reason to do so.

Veritas lateat.

And.... on February 6, 2015, John Greenewald posted:

Yes, it's sad and very telling that the company has to slander me in the process of explaining their decision. What they are not mentioning, conveniently, is I spoke directly with their attorney and told them I never even downloaded it from their site, so the accusation of labeling me a thief was unfounded. I asked for evidence, and she, of course, could produce none. They also have not had "scraping" as they call it in their Term of Service over the years... though it is now... it is absent from other versions of their policy. So, since they have produced no logs anyway of whomever downloaded it (with dates), who knows when this information was compiled and whether it really was against their terms of use policy of "scraping." They are leaving out the fact that my archive had quite a bit that Fold3 did not, including documents obtained under the FOIA that were obtained by me, and user submissions from actual Blue Book witnesses who saw their cases on The Black Vault. They laid claim to all of that. They also leave out the fact that I offered to turn over my personal financial statements, and donate to the few dollars (literally, few dollars) that came in since they accused me of "profiting". They declined when they realized the money was not even in the 3 digits, and in fact, not even close. They also leave out that I offered to give 100% (yes. 100%) of ALL commercial ad space to them to sell, advertise properties, advertise their DNA kits, or whatever they wanted -- and to keep 100% of the profits. They declined. They are also leaving out, the fact their attorneys had full knowledge I was going to release a statement, and as a courtesy to them, I asked for them to release the same, and I would be more than happy to publish, next to mine, what they would like to say about the issue, unedited. They declined. But, of course, I learn they slander me because they are getting flooded with letters and phone calls. The court of public opinion is all I need to know that this issue -- is a ludicrous one -- and a waste of time and money for everyone. Plain and simple -- I'd love evidence that *I* downloaded anything from them. They can never produce it -- and the guy who did who I only know by a nickname -- could have (though I don't know) downloaded the information well before the "scraping" clause was in their terms of use policy. Since I asked for evidence and I was met with silence, my guess he did without breaking their terms of use policy, did not "steal" anything and the information is in the public domain which no one can lay claim to -- not even if you did scan it as indicated by the NY Supreme Court ruling:
 It's a shame that this is the type of corporation is. Their recent show of this is quite apparent in their statement about me personally -- especially since I peacefully complied with their demands -- and their attack and label on my is nothing short of saddening and pathetic.

In short, it's a mess.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?