From: Greg Bishop <exclmid.nul> Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Fwd Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 11:26:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Bishop >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> Dr. Salla, I'd like to thank you for reading my book, Project Beta, and applying some critical thought to it. This is indeed rare, and I appreciate it. I would however like to take issue with some of your statements. You apparently misread my words or chose to let your preconceptions dictate your impressions in a number of areas. In doing research for the book, I tried to let former intelligence personnel give me their side of the story, and see where it fit in with the Ufological literature and known facts, as well as how their accounts jibed with what has been publicly reported on the fallout of the Bennewitz case, as well as my own impressions and observations after interviewing others. I have already addressed the issue of dealing with intelligence agents in another post on this list. The gist of my opinion is that you must deal with intelligence personnel if you want to get to the center of the Government/UFO 'onion'. Listening only to those who tell you what you want to hear is just as flawed as ignoring them, or worse, believing all the information that they feed you is true. It has been almost a quarter century since the events described in Project Beta occurred. The passage of time and much of the sensitivity surrounding the projects at Kirtland have had time to cool down. This makes it more likely that people involved in the disinfo campaign at the time can talk more freely about the subject. I find it interesting that people such as Col. Phil Corso and Robert Dean were welcomed with open arms because they said what we wanted to hear, although I know of no evidence uncovered as yet to back up their most sensational claims. I am not calling them liars or disinfo agents, I am merely making a point of perspective here. The best procedure I think is to listen to their stories, and check up on the information, as Robert and Ryan Wood - among others - are currently doing. How are whistleblowers more believable than intelligence agents? How do we know that these people are not intelligence agents themselves, or have been set up? If disinformation works well, the target will not only believe what they have been told or shown, but will keep their nose on the line and continue on their own, even without any subsequent confirming evidence. This is a well-demonstrated trait. If we believe whistleblower testimony out of hand, and reject intelligence leaks, we are not looking at the full picture. You assume I only used information provided to me by Doty and Moore. I also talked to Jerry Miller, Gabe Valdez, Leo Sprinkle, Garry Massey, Joe Stefula, Christa Tilton, Grant Cameron and Eric Davis, among many others, as well as published information in newspapers, books, periodicals, and on the internet, as well as declassified documents. This was made clear in the text as well as in the acknowledgements section of the book. Although the interviewees provided balance and helpful suggestions, as I recall none of these people were seriously suspicious about any sort of base at Dulce - with the possible exception of Christa Tilton. Even Officer Valdez told me that he did not observe anything along these lines on the Archuleta Mesa. Valdez lived there and dealt with the terrain and residents in the area on a daily basis. There were certainly cattle mutilated, and strange lights aplenty, but no evidence of an underground base. How do you know what was "genuine" in Bennewitz' reports? You claim that I assume his whole theory of underground base and captured humans (I never mentioned any captured people) was solely a product of disinformation. This is not the case. What I did say is that the Air Force and NSA capitalized on existing aspects of his theory for their own ends. Claims of whistleblowers are just like the claims of government agents=97we have to check the facts if they are available. Lazar, Schneider, Wolf and Burisch had incredible stories to tell about Dulce, but like Corso, Dean, and even Doty there is little or no supporting evidence. (I double checked Doty's and Moore's statements with those of others=97within the government and the UFO field, as well as published accounts. If they matched, I included them. If not, I specifically stated so.) If Schneider was murdered, was it because he was talking too much about alien bases, or was there another reason? No one has answered this question to date, although Valdez showed me letters from Schneider's widow asking for his help in investigating his death. I don't recall her mentioning anything about underground bases. None of these people talked about Dulce until a decade after Bennewitz had first started his reports. We are left with rumors and claims, but no reliable information to back them up. Plausible is not factual. The picture they paint is quite incredible and frightening, but I am not dismissing their claims out of hand. I did not say that the $75,000 grant was given to Bennewitz as part of a "sting". You state, "What is more likely is that Bennewitz had developed the means for intercepting electronic transmissions that were of great interest to the Air Force." Except for the fact that I wrote that the originating agency was actually the NSA, this is exactly what I maintained! I think that you let yourself get so involved by what you thought you read, that you didn't understand a major aspect of the case as I tried to explain it. You assume that the Air Force (as you say) wanted to find out what the aliens were doing by using Bennewitz' expertise. If that was the case, all they had to do was either copy his setup or confiscate his equipment. This would not have been difficult, since he was convinced that he was in their confidence. I followed the more likely scenario. Bennewitz was flown over the Archuleta Mesa on at least two occasions to look at the supposed indications of an underground base there. The Air Force had actually placed props on the ground to draw his attention to this area and away from Kirtland Air Force Base. Why would they do this if there really was a base under the mesa? Wouldn't they simply have told Bennewitz that there was nothing of interest there? They knew that he was contacting elected officials and news media about his concerns. It would seem self-defeating let this secret out. On the Art Bell program about a month ago, Richard Doty stated that he knew the Roswell incident was a crashed alien craft. If it were not for the fact that Doty is persona non grata in the UFO community, this would have been greeted as a revelation. Was this a another ploy by Doty to keep us listening to other lies he chooses to tell? He has been out of the Air Force for over 10 years. What would be the purpose of such shenanigans? I know many Ufologists will say that he still dances to his piper's tune, and 'you never really retire from intelligence work', but this stretches my own credulity. Besides, as I mentioned already, he was not the sole source for the narrative of the book. I realized that I didn't have much more to go on than most members of the public, so I decided to follow the information I was given, and come up with the most likely scenario. I am not a debunker or rabid skeptic. Far from it. See: www.excludedmiddle.com for some of my earlier writings on the UFO subject. To me, the evidence pointed at a disinfo campaign and little else. If there is any reliable evidence for a joint human-alien base in Dulce besides uncheckable testimony, I would like to see it. It is unfortunate that few of Bennewitz' photos of the area survive. Those that do show nothing conclusive. Colleagues who saw his aerial photos at the time could not pick out anything substantive, no matter how hard they tried. It seems to me that your concern stems from a core belief that the alien-military alliance or at least interaction is a fait accompli. I cannot subscribe wholeheartedly to a scenario for which there has been no conclusive proof. It is very interesting to study and speculate, but presently, an intellectual exercise is all we have. There is nothing wrong with this, but there are much better issues available in which to plant a basis in reality. You suggest that I stained Bennewitz' memory by my treatment of him in Project Beta. This is the opposite of my feelings and why I took great pains to emphasize this in the book. That's why I dedicated it to him. What I wanted to show was that even this brilliant man could be fooled by his own tunnel vision and his ears tuned only to what he had already decided was true, instead of weighing the evidence on a case-by-case basis. You contend that Moore announced his complicity in the disinfo campaign to cover up for the fact that there actually _was_ an underground base. I suppose that this is possible, but this tactic launches us even further into speculation. Project Beta deals with far more than the question of an underground base. Divesting this subject from the rest of the book does the story, and my research a disservice. We need to emphasize what is provable to disinterested parties, based on something besides (or in addition to) the testimony of whistleblowers. When we are dealing in human experience, i.e. something with which we are all familiar - secret weapons, government malfeasance, etc. - we can investigate claims based on a reality which is widely accepted, but to apply this to the UFO question is an area which has been problematic at best. I did not read any of the other responses to your post before writing this, so I apologize for any repetition of subjects, and thank those who I am told have supported me.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp