system: You are Jack Sargeant, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Ufo message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to All about "Wash. D.C. UFOs, 1 of 2".

They wrote:
> From: ufo1@juno.com [Jack Sargeant]
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: Re: ... Washington DC 1952 investigation
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:23:43 EST
> Hello the list and to Gary...
> >Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:50:16 -0500 UFO UpDates - Toronto
> >From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy]
> >Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:13:44 -0500
> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ... Washington DC 1952 investigation
> >> From: ufo1@juno.com [Jack Sargeant]
> >> To: updates@globalserve.net
> >> Subject: Re: ... Washington DC 1952 investigation
> >> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:24:29 EST
> >> >From: KRandle993 <KRandle993@aol.com> [Kevin Randle]
> >> >Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 14:16:43 EST
> >> >To: updates@globalserve.net
> >> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ... Washington DC 1952 investigation
> >> Hello the list, and to Kevin Randle...
> >> >>>> From: ufo1@juno.com [Jack Sargeant]
> >> >>>> To: updates@globalserve.net
> >> >>>> Subject: Re: Michael Fousse discusses Washington DC 1952
> >> >>>>investigation
> >> The answer is, newspaper articles are more likely to be less
> >> biased than a book that has been written with embellishments
> >> and wording designed to sell ideas that may be considered
> >> exaggerations or falsehoods by main-stream thinking. ...Just
> >> my point of view, of course.  ...And then there's the fact
> >> that I was there.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Jack
> >Jack,
> >What does that "fact", which you so glibly offer up, mean?
> Glibly? Well, you sure do set the tone for this discussion,
> don't you?
> >You state you where there, where exactly was that?
> I was a resident at 1434 Harvard St. N.W., Washington, DC
> >What exactly did you witness?
> The reaction of the people around me. ...The news on the
> radio. The headlines in the Washington Post.
> >Were you a participant in any of the airport control towers?
> No. If I had been a participant, I would have said so in one
> of my earlier posts. However, I know what the public reaction
> was. It was exciting, but not scary.
> >Were you a member of one of the intelligence services cleared
> >for investigation of the sightings?
> No. Please make your point.
> >Gary
> What? Just plain Gary?  ...No polite sign-off like "Regards"?
> Regards,
> Jack
>From his study of the UFO reports that he was getting from Air
>>> Continued to next message

Write your reply.

assistant: for <ufo1@juno.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:35:42 -0500 (EST)
From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy]
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 02:46:48 -0500
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Subject: Re: ... Washington DC 1952 investigation
Hello Jack,
I was too harsh in using the term "glibly".  Also it was not my
intention to belittle your experience as an observer of the
Washington DC events.
However, I think you may be unaware and therefore a bit naive
about some unusual apects of the Washington National events which
have been researched and documented in books such as Ruppelt's
which have never and may never be reported in the newspapers.
For instance I offer for your consideration the following passage
from Ruppelts The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Chapter
12, The Washington-merry-go-round.
In some aspects the Washington National Sightings could be
classed as a surprise -- we used this as an excuse when things
got fouled up --- but in other ways they weren't. A few day prior
to the incident a scientist, from an agency that I can't name and
I were talking about the build-up of reports along the east coast
of the United States. We talked for about two hours, and I was
ready to leave when he said that he had one last comment to make
-- a prediction.
Force Headquarters, and from discussions with his colleagues, he
said that he thought that we were sitting right on top of a big
keg full of loaded flying saucers. "Within the next few days," he
told me, and I remember that he punctuated his slow, deliberate
remarks hitting the desk with his fist, "they're going to blow up
and you're going to have the granddaddy of all UFO sightings. The
sighting will occur in Washington or New York," he predicted,
"probably Washington."
The trend in the UFO reports that this scientist based his
prediction on hadn't gone unnoticed. We on Project Blue Book had
seen it, and so had the people in the Pentagon: we all had talked
about it.
end of Ruppelt quotation.