From: Mike Jamieson <mike.jamieson.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:21:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:43:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Jamieson


>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 04:48:44 -100
>Subject: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

<snip>

>There are many assumptions that Bishop makes that can be
>seriously criticized. First should Richard Doty and William
>Moore be believed that the information they fed to Bennewitz was
>in fact disinformation, rather than rumors of disinformation
>being spread to discredit Bennewitz and his legitimate claims of
>extraterrestrial bases with captive humans? Bishop certainly
>concludes the former from his interviews with Doty and Moore,
>and curiously doesn't consider the latter possibility as
>seriously worth considering. If Bennewitz was the subject of a
>disinformation campaign, as most agree was indeed the case, then
>should one find credible the testimony of individuals directly
>participating in such a campaign? Bishop paints a sympathetic
>picture of Moore as someone who unintentionally overstepped the
>bounds of sensible research principles and cooperated with the
>'wrong side' so to speak. The same cannot be said for Richard
>Doty who was a professional in AFOSI and was a direct part of
>the campaign to discredit Bennewitz. Bishop seems too eager to
>accept Doty's and Moore's' versions of events that the
>information Bennewitz claimed concerning underground
>extraterrestrial bases and captive humans was in fact
>disinformation fed to Bennewitz.

<snip>

Hi Michael,

I don't know about Richard Doty, but I am sure Bill Moore could
be counted on to be credible when he essentially laid out his
self-destructive bombshell before that MUFON symposium. At that
early date, the nonsense being laid out by Lear, Cooper,
English, etc. was clearly exposed for what it was, thanks to
Moore digging, in mole like fashion, into a little section of
counter-intelligence land.

I haven't read the book yet, and that would certainly help in
seeing more about that slice of ufo history.

But, I can remember talking to Moore before he gave that
presentation. He was apparently in the middle of writing it. He
told me the basic story, "of observing a counter intelligence
operation in action", etc. and I remember thinking that was an
invaluable revelation.

I seem to remember, that in discussions following the MUFON
conference revelations, that Moore would describe him
encouraging Bennewitz to use his discriminating judgement and
not take what he was passing on as necessarily being accurate.
That was, reportedly, motivated by his (Moore's growing )
concern over Bennewitz' health.

I noticed, that whenever I spent any time with Moore (prior to
public presentations a couple of times), he encouraged a sharply
discriminating inquiry approach. He asked if I had read "The
Unicorn's Secret", the tale about Ira Einhorn, his conspiracy
theories, and his murdering ways. He also asked what I thought
about the developing story by Bob Lazar. And, looked at it with
an idea of doing so to develop a discriminating inquiry.

That's why that I have to say that the whistleblowers you listed
are what I feel are "fabulists". People fashioning fabulous
stories. Wolf, Lazar, Burisch. And others. All taking some
variation of the tales told by Lear and Cooper a couple of
decades back and creating their own mini-series drama. Burisch,
in particular, seems to have a big theater (in cyberspace) and a
large audience kept enthralled by increasingly melodramatic
dramas.

I am beginning to wonder, Michael, if the single most useful
tool we have nowadays is Peter Davenport's National UFO
Reporting Center. A lot of the information that is "out there"
(like ufoconspiracy.com) just seems like it comes out of that
new modern journalistic school of "Fabulists": people crafting
exciting stories that are not based on actual events/people,
etc.