UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 14

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

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:14:56 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 10:29:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Friedman


>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

><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?

Michael, I use the word "Nonsense" advisedly. Michael Wolf
attended Upsala, but did not finish. That is it. According to
his brother and three old friends, he never completed any
college program, did spend time in a mental hospital for which
his mother was asking her divorced husband for more support. He
was never in the military was not a Colonel pilot, was not close
to the Clintons, etc. The claim from him and him alone supported
by nothing is that he had 6 degrees including an MD from McGill,
PhDs in theoretical Physics from MIT and Cal Tech, a law degree
from Georgetown and 2 more degrees. Not one shred of evidence
has been presented.No diplomas, no listings. These claims are
_nonsense_.

Bob Lazar did take at least one class at Pierce Junior College
near LA under physics Prof. William Duxler. He claimed Duxler
taught Physics at Cal Tech. NOT TRUE... only at Pierce. No one
has provided any evidence that he has received any degrees from
anywhere. He did not work for Los Alamos. He worked for Kirk
Meyer. He received his high school diploma on Long Island in
August having taken one science course, chemistry. His
educational and professional claims are _nonsense_, not even an
advisor for his MS thesis.I have noted the many checks I have
done with many offices at MIT etc

Bob's physics claims are more double-talk. Yes, 4 atoms of
element 115 have been created in a period of a month at a huge
accelerator. The half life is too short for anybody to collect
500 pounds as Bob has alleged.I have noted many more, you should
pardon the expression, facts

Michael, I gather you will believe what you want to believe, but
you are certainly undermining the efforts of legitimate
Whistleblowers by promoting _nonsense_. Please provide any
evidence, soft, hard, or medium, that these _nonsensical_claims_
are legitimate.

>>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.

Corso made a sworn statement to attorney Peter Gersten that he
had been a member of the NSC. He refused to withdraw it when
Peter showed him the letter from the Eisenhower Library.
Incidentally, many of the minutes and lists of attendees at a
host of NSC meetings are not any longer classified. Liaison
people like Corso were concerned with particular areas not all
NSC activities and did not even have a need to know for what
other people were concerned with.....

>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.

Michael, here you go with more nonsense. My requests were NOT
FOIA requests. There is a huge amount of declassified NSC info.
I didn't ask if he had attended NSC meetings. They checked and
told me "We have not located any evidence that he ever attended
an actual NSC meeting" and sent me some letters from his
superiors. You want to make him an important cog in the NSC
wheel . He was not

>>In peace

>>Michael Salla

I am glad to see you have done some homework on the NSC. I have
no idea where your claims about what is, or isn't, classified and
about Corso originate. Have you actually been to the Ike Library
and had dealings with their archivists? Or are you making your
comments up as you go along.


Stan Friedman



[ 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