UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 13

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

From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:36:41 -1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Salla


>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:58:35 -0300
>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

>>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

<snip>

>I worked closely with Bill Moore for several years. He has his
>faults as do we all. I would take his word any time over that of
>Michael Salla's so called whistleblowers such as Lazar, Wolf,
>Milton William Cooper etc. Fabulist is a good word.

Aloha Stan, this is not a matter of comparing different sources
and comparing them to one another. in terms of whose word is
more trustworthy. It's looking at the context in which these
individuals made claims, participated in investigations, etc.,
that competent researchers try to make sense of. Bill Moore
voluntarily chose to play a role in disseminating rumors that
Bennewitz had been fed disinformation with the purpose of
ultimately discrediting Paul Bennewitz. That was poor judgement
and certainly something that rightly did not endear him to many
researchers. I think those wanting to defend Moore wrongly
assume that Moore's poor judgement is mitigated because he
warned Bennewitz that the information from AFOSI was
disinformation. That is mistaken. Moore played a key role in
spreading rumors that Bennewitz had been fed disinformation and
this was the basis of Bennewitz's extravagent claims regarding
ET bases and captive humans. So Moore continued to play a role
in discrediting Bennewitz even at the 1989 MUFON conference when
he came clean. He was used by AFOSI to do this and became a fly
in the AFOSI trap.

As for Lazar and Wolf, both allegedly worked at S4 and made
claims that have been investigated by competent researchers who
disagree over the conclusions. We've already debated Lazar and
I'm sure will soon do the same regarding Wolf. Cooper has his
Navy background which he claimed gave him access to classified
documents with information on UFOs/ETs due to the security
classification  he needed for his position on the briefing team
for the Commander of the Pacific Fleet. Cooper openly supplied
his service record to validate his background, and while his
testimony over the years has changed, it's his military
background that can't be ignored, and gives him some
credibility. Trying to compare these individuals in terms of
whose word can be trusted is like comparing apples and oranges.

>Michael Salla , I have trouble believing much of what you say because
>you have so blindly accepted nonsense from these guys. I am sure
>that the government is laughing it's head off  at seeing you do
>so much well written disinformation... perhaps misinformation
>would be better. Sure the government has lied.They can at least
>hide behind national security. But what excuse can Lazar, Wolf
>et al provide?

Stanton, who defines 'nonsense' here? Just because someone
doesn't supply sufficient hard evidence or supporting documents
to meet your stringent standards doesn't mean they are
disseminating nonsense. You are asserting your methodological
bias as the benchmark standard for whistleblower or witness
credibility. Sensible people can disagree over methodology and
reach divergent opinions in particular cases. Claiming someone
is disseminating 'nonsense' or that a researcher is 'blind'
because they accept in whole or part the testimony of a
whistleblower or witness is a useful rhetorical method but
really doesn't address the inherent research difficulties in
this field. You for example accept that the government 'lies',
but don't accept that the government can and does withdraw
public documents and hard evidence for the purpose of
discrediting whistleblowers and witnesses. Are you being
sensible or naive here? Am I being gullible in accepting claims
that the 'secret' government does indeed resort to these tactics
to discredit individuals? We can debate all day but resorting to
dismissive labels such as nonsense, blind, etc., doesn't help
anyone or answer these basic questions. Yes, the 'government'
lies, but does the government remove, alter or destroy evidence
to make one out to be a liar?

>You want to believe that Corso was on the National Security
>Council. If you do any checking (I know, not your style) you will
>find that the NSC's membership is determined by Statute. He had
>none of the positions that would have permitted him to be named
>a member.Do you have any reason to claim that the Eisenhower
>Library was lying when they said he was not a member and did not
>attend any meetings? A referral letter about him makes clear he
>was a liaison man... not a member. I have copies. Archivists
>aren't perfect, but I surely have far more reason to believe them
>than your so called whistleblowers. I know you disdain hard
>evidence. How about presenting soft evidence if you want the
>world to believe these claims?.

I'm surprised you bring this up. Here is what the bio on the
back jacket of Corso's book says: "Colonel Philip J. Corso USA
(Ret) was a key Army intelligence officer who served on General
MacArthur's staff in Korea and later in Dwight D. Eisenhower's
National Security Council as a lietanent colonel." Corso did not
claim and could not possibly have been a member of the NSC which
comprises the heads of different government agencies and
departments as you well know. Why do you ascribe to Corso
something that he never claimed? Anyone with any experience
regarding the operations of the NSC would know that each member
of the NSC has a staff comprising career professionals and
military officers such as Lt Col Corso who would not necessarily
attend actual NSC meetings but would be there to assist the NSC
member s/he is assigned to or to assist in the operations of the
NSC as a whole. That's the nature of staff support and Corso's
position as a 'liaison man' meant that he had to be aware of
what was happening at the meetings to report back to his
superiors, without necessarily being present. It's worth
pointing out that the operational procedure and attendence of
NSC meetings is classified information so we will not the full
story on who attended meetings and what was discussed.

As for the Eisenhower library having no record of Corso
attending NSC meetings or being a member of the NSC, you asked
them the wrong questions. As a staff member, Corso did not have
to be necessarily present at NSC meetings to fulfill his
functions, nor was he a member of the NSC as we know. If you
asked the Eisenhower adminstration if Corso was a member, then
of course the answer would be no. That was an elementary mistake
on your part. So what's your point here about the Eisenhower
administration lying? You should have asked the Eishenhower
library whether the list of staff members assigned to President
Eisenhower NSC is classified information, and whether the
attendence at NSC meetings in terms of staff representatives is
also classified information. In both cases, the answer would
most likely have been 'yes' which explains the answers you got.
FOIA would not help you get the attendence of NSC meetings since
it's not covered under FOIA so there would be no way of you
getting such information unless it was declassified. It's not
mine or Corso's problem if you asked the wrong questions and
didn't get the validation you were seeking.


In peace

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