Glenn Campbell: Home Facebook Photos YouTube Twitter
Earth Earth
Location: Area 51 > List > 1997 > Dec > Here

NOTICE: The page below has been permenently FROZEN as of January 2000. Due to resource limitations, this section of our website is no longer maintained, so some links may not work and some information may be out of date. We have retained this page for archive reference only, and we cannot vouch for its accuracy. Broken links will not be repaired, and minor errors will not be corrected. You are responsible for independently verifying any information you may find here.

Color Commentary on Sherman vs. Louttit

From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:39:56 -0800

This is your moderator, speaking from the press box high above
the stadium.

The bout between Sherman and Louttit is an exciting one.
Both landed a couple of good punches, as well as a few below the
belt.  There wasn't any knockout, but if I had to judge now, I'd
give the match to Sherman on points.

I don't mean that his claims are true or untrue; I mean he has
done better than Louttit at sticking to the point. Louttit seems
to have diluted his arguments with irrelevencies, while Sherman's
responses remain consistent with his claims.

Some observations...

Louttit:
>He admitted to committing homosexual acts or an act to get
>discharged from the Air Force rather than remain in the program.

As I understand it, you don't have to commit an "act" to be
discharged for homosexuality; you only have to admit your
orientation.  You just walk into the commanders office and say,
"I like men."  You don't have to actually sleep with one or admit
sleeping with one, only admit wanting to. It is the politics of
our age.

Louttit's grammer irritates me because it implies that Sherman
actually committed a homosexual act, which to my knowledge
Sherman has never suggested. After this, I now question Louttit's
motives and his attention to detail.  It seems that he made up
his mind first and is construing Sherman's story and character to
fit that theory.

Sherman:
>This statement is untrue.

Sherman's short reply is consistent with his claims. For legal
reasons, he does not want to publically admit that he lied to get
out of the service or to give too many details; hence his
caginess on the issue.  (In his book, he refuses to say how
he was discharged.)

Nonetheless, this does provide a plausible psychological
explanation for Sherman's claims.  If not money or attention,
then why would someone make up such a story?  Perhaps he is
trying to explain to others this black spot on his record.

Louttit:
> Mr. Sherman... I will accept your explanation about getting to
> the Captain's office.

Sherman wins one.

Louttit:
>I have a great deal of difficulty
>accepting the idea that there are programs so highly classified
>that they are in effect not classified. Why would this be so,
>and why would you not sign a non-disclosure agreement, also why
>would there be no caveat or codeword?

Actually, I find this highly plausible.  There is no point in
classifying alien information or requiring a non-disclosure
agreement for it if you can't enforce these restrictions through
any conventional chain of command.

Imagine that I am inducted into an alien program -- say, feeding
children to the Grays at Area 51.  I sign a lot of forms and am
told that the existence of the aliens is classified "Top Secret,"
but I choose to blab about them anyway.  What are they going to
do to me?  Are they going to take me to court?  Are they going to
bring me before any military tribunal?  (They could kill me, but
that's outside the conventional channels.) Any of these things
would just risk greater exposure and would confirm to
unindoctrinated parties that the program is real. With something
that is so disconnected from the rest of our experience, a
classification is useless.

The only thing that might work is burying the alien program
inside a conventional top secret program.  This is the central
premise of Sherman's claims, and it is a possibility that Louttit
has not intelligently addressed.  With his background, he ought
to have more insight than the rest of us into whether such a
nested program is possible.

>>Our system was much more advanced.  We had Sun
>>Workstations with 27 inch monitors running customized software
>>that would put Windows 95 to shame.
>
>  I am familiar with the type of software that you are
>  describing. Your description of the van you worked in is an
>  exact one that is part of the Tactical Exploitation of National
>  Capabilities (TENCAP) system.

Is Louttit conceding another point to Sherman?

Sherman:
>We did have civilian contractors who worked on the equipment.
>I'm sure at least one of them had been indoct'ed into PPD.

Not necessarily.  A technician only needs to set up this "black
window" communication channel. He doesn't have to know what it is
for.  It is very simple programming.  The feature can be left on
the computer without much worry, because if another user stumbled
onto it (by hitting the wrong function key or whatever) he
couldn't do anything with it.

Sherman is doing little more than typing an email message. The
communication is going in only one direction - from the terminal
to some unknown destination - and the only thing on the terminal
that might be sensitive would be the address it is going to.
Even that might not mean much, because once the message reaches
its first destination, it could be forwarded elsewhere.
Presumably, the format of Sherman's messages would have
distinguished them from anything an unauthorized hacker would
have typed into the black screen. Thus, controlling the terminal
wouldn't seem to be a big issue.

Sherman:
>I'm not sure
>what Mr. Louttit is saying here in his critique.  Is he disputing
>that I worked in a van, worked with a black project, worked with
>the grey project... what is he trying to dispute.

Good point.  I was wondering the same.

Louttit:
>  No Mr. Sherman... I'll overlook your ad hominum remarks... I'm
>  not trying to tell you how much (or little) I know about
>  AUTODIN... what I'm trying to do is verify your claims but you
>  are making it very difficult.

Louttit is getting testy.  How is Sherman making it difficult?
Aside from not wanting to talk about code words, specific
classified systems or the exact circumstances of his discharge,
Sherman seems pretty open.

Louttit:
> Well if that is case and you were so compartmentalized then why
> can you talk about it now?

Louttit is getting frustrated.  He doesn't understand.

> It seems to me very unusual that
> something this important would be merely an additional duty.

It is buried within another black program, so it is secure. What
is the alternative?  Put him in a office by himself and have him
sit around and wait for transmissions?  Then you've got to keep
him busy the rest of the time.  Full-timers require a lot more
maintenance than part-timers.

What is "important" is relative.  Maybe in the larger scheme of
the program, Sherman is not very important at all, certainly not
important enough to treat well. Sherman is an asset but also a
risk. Maybe they wanted to put him in a place where they could
benefit from his skills without risking exposure, and the risks
were the higher priority.

Louttit:
>  Mr. Sherman, you need to listen to your radio interview again.
>  This is where you make a statement the effect that certain
>  demographics were involved in the selection of mothers for
>  implants. You imply that lower middle class people were used,
>  one reason being that demographically they are more apt to
>  enlist in the military.

Unfortunately, as a text-based organism, I have not listened to
the radio interview.  However, as a victim of many radio
interviews myself, I know how it works.  Radio invites
speculation. No, it demands it.  The host is always pressuring
you to make predictions and devine the "big picture", even if
it is only a guess.

Louttit:
> Then why use the term intuitive? According to you that is what
> you passed, numbers that were geo locations.

A person uses the words that are given to him.  For example, when
you eat Grape Nuts for breakfast, you know they contain neither
grapes nor nuts, yet you call them Grape Nuts anyway because that
is how they are labelled. A debunker would accuse you of never
having had breakfast because, if you did, why would you use such
a silly term?

Louttit:
>  Mr. Sherman I'll put this
>  challenge to you...if you are forthcoming to me with specific
>  information...I will do everything that I am capable of doing
>  to validate your claims....but I find that it is very
>  convenient for you to tell your story and then cite security
>  reasons for not going further. I am still working within the
>  system and am willing to lay it on the line if we can come to a
>  degree of veracity that proves beyond a doubt that your story
>  is true. Are you willing to take that risk, Mr. Sherman? I am
>  and potentially I have a lot more to lose than you.

I don't trust him!  If this offer were genuine, it would have
been made in private.  Louttit has publically declared his
position, and only proving Sherman wrong will fulfill it.

>>>3. Have Mr. Sherman agree to take a polygraph test. It might
>>>prove inconclusive, but then again it might not, If he is telling
>>>the truth, he has nothing to fear. (Yes we know that polygraphs
>>>are not recognized in a court of law, but they are routinely used
>>>at NSA for security purposes and they are good i
>>ndicators)
>>
>>I would be happy to!
>
>  I will recommend that to MSN.... frankly I think it would help
>  your case even though some question the effectiveness of
>  polygraphs.

Silly posturing.  Is MSN supposed to be an organization with a
budget for these things?  (It is an online UFO forum.)  I am
reminded of Agent Mulder reciting the name of the "Mutual UFO
Network" like it was some kind of investigative organization.
That always cracks me up.

I doubt that there will be a polygraph test.  Sherman has said
he'll do it but won't pay for it.  So who will?  (Paging Mr.
Bigelow!) And what good would it do?

If Sherman clearly failed the test, it would probably kill his
claims, but if he passed, it wouldn't help him much.  Louttit and
others would accuse him of fooling the machine.

Sherman's claims cannot stand on their own. Unless another source
emerges, his story will simply fade away, polygraph or no.

Sherman:
>Meanwhile, I know I will have to fend off shots by
>self-aggrandizing people attempting to bring to themselves a bit
>of limelight.

That does seem like a cheap shot.  It is hard to accuse Louttit
of this, but some might claim it applies to Sherman. I wonder
what it means.

Glenn

+---------------------------------------------------------------
| AREA 51 MAILING LIST - A moderated forum for selected topics
| http://www.ufomind.com/area51/list/ - G. Campbell, Moderator
| "unsubscribe"/"subsingle" to: <area51-request@lists.best.com>
| Submissions to: <area51@lists.best.com>
|
| RELEVANCE OF THIS MESSAGE: Response to previous
|
| Index: Dan Sherman
+---------------------------------------------------------------


Area 51 > List > 1997 > Dec > Here

Our Design and Original Text Copyrighted © 1994-99 Area 51 Research Center
PO Box 30303, Las Vegas, NV 89173   Glenn Campbell, Webmaster & Moderator

This site is supported by the Aliens on Earth Bookstore
Please visit our business if you appreciate our free web services.  New Items

Send corrections to webmaster@ufomind.com

This page: http://www.aliensonearth.com/area51/list/1997/dec/a02-002.shtml   (10/22/18 19:24)
We encourage you to link to this page from your own. No permission required.

Created: Dec 2, 1997