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 - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <lovolution.nul>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 04:11:32 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:27:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Goldstein

>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:36:41 -1000
>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

>>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


>>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
>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.


Aloha Dr. Salla,

You are relying on proven liars and frauds for "whistleblowers".

I want to inform you that when the Bennewitz story first started
to come out,  I and other researchers went to Dulce Canyon,
interviewed Gabe Valdez, and physically searched Dulce Canyon.

Other researchers continually combed that area for several years
afterward. No underground facilities were ever found. I don't
believe there has ever been any truth to an underground facility
(let alone a mythical alien/military laboratory) existing at

Dr. Salla, you seem to be someone who listens but does not hear
or understand anything told to you except wild unproven tales.

You are living in fantasy land and your reputation in the UFO
field is as low as that of your phony "whistleblowers". You are
going nowhere with your misguided efforts. I am glad we live on
separate islands of Hawaii.

Josh Goldstein

[ 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