UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 12

Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Salla

From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:32:00 -1000
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:23:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Salla

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

>>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


>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.

Now I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions because
extraordinary stories don't have the extraordinary proof as
demanded by researchers wanting to emulate Hynek's scientific
methodology. While Hynek's method is appropriate for a pure
scientific phenomenon, it is inappropriate for the world of
black budget funded waived special access programs that Lear and
Cooper allegedly had information about. Revealing classified
information is a federal crime and to expect 'whistleblowers'
such as Lear and Cooper to have hard evidence to back up every
one of their 'wild claims' is very naive. Do you really think
they could hold on to hard evidence for long if they were daring
enough to keep some with them? What we need is a well thought
out process for dealing with whistleblower testimonies rather
than the general dismissiveness they earn from those wishing to
model UFO studies on Hynek's research principles.

>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.

Bishop discusses this in his book which gives the kind of
sympathetic treatment to Moore that you are advocating. However,
Moore used his friendship with Bennewitz to pass information to
and from AFOSI. I don't want to dismiss his credibility as a
researcher, but it shows that he compromised himself by being
party to an AFOSI operation. It's something we can perhaps learn
from but the victim was Bennewitz who was seeking genuine
friends in his growing difficulties. Regardless of Moore's
motivation, even if he was convinced he was passing on
disinformation, his real role may have been to establish rumors
that Bennewitz had been fed disinformation. Thus Bennewitz's
material may have not been influenced all that much by the
disinformation fed to him, but the rumor that everything
Bennewitz was claiming was AFOSI disinformation was more
damaging. That's an important distinction I hope you can see
here. Moore played a direct role in legitimating such
disinformation rumors as revealed in his 1989 MUFON lecture.
Moore showed that he played a role in legitimating rumors or
accusations that all Bennewitz was claiming was AFOSI inspired
disinformation. That's where those defending Moore err since
they haven't distinguished the difference between a discrediting
campaign based on legitimating rumors of disinformation fed to
the target, and a disinformation campaign aiming to discrediting
a target.

>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

Now we need to distinguish between different categories of
whistleblowers. Lear, Cooper and English allegedly had
information on a range of ET/UFO related issues but had no
direct experiences with the extraterrestrials Bennewitz claimed
to be located at Dulce. So this group are secondary sources on
what occurred at Dulce, and Bishop is exercizing solid research
method in avoiding secondary sources. On the other hand,
Schneider, Wolf, Burisch, Castello claimed to have actually
worked or visited Dulce, while Lazar claims to have read of it
in a briefing document. They are therefore all primary sources
and should have been cited even if Greg Bishop disagreed with
them. That's where Bishop needs to be criticized for his
ommission. Dismissing alleged primary whistleblower sources as
"fabulists" may earn you points from some veteran Ufologists,
but its a biased research methodology that shouldn't occur in a
comprehensive study or book.

>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,

Unfortunately Davenport dismisses UFO sightings reported by
witnesses at specific locations such as James Gilliland's Mt
Adams in Washington State or CSETI sightings which have multiple
witnesses at mulitiple locations. It appears that for a sighting
to be reported it has to fit a set of 'scientific criteria'
first established by Allen Hynek. However, if one reads Hynek's
The UFO Experience, one notes the sophistry with which he
dismisses repeated sightings at a single venue or sightings by
the same set of observers. These cases are simply excluded from
Hynek's recommended database even if hard evidence exists in the
form of photos, film, multiple witnesses; therefore
Hynek's/Davenport's research method provides an incomplete
picture of the UFO phenomenon. That's probably my biggest gripe
with veteran UFO researchers, they exclude whistleblower
testimonies because they claim there's no 'hard evidence', and
at the same time they exclude 'hard evidence' of many UFO
sightings because they argue these need to be reported by
independent witnesses in independent locations. UFO research as
a 'pure science' alone cannot solve the UFO enigma due to the
political and national security element which is inherent.
That's my plug for an exopolitics approach.


Michael Salla

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com