UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 15

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

From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 12:51:18 -1000
Fwd Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:21:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Salla


>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:14:56 -0300
>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

>>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

<snip>

>>>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_.

Aloha Stan,

Michael Wolf is a very interesting and complicated case as you
well know. Firstly, Wolf's brother, Ron Kruvant, changed his
story after Michael Wolf died. Ron Kruvant was previously
interviewed and confirmed what Michael had to say about his
government education, UFO contacts, etc. I think we should
consider what factors drove Ron Kruvant to change his story
before you jump the gun and use his changed testimony to
discredit Wolf. Stories about Michael being in a Mental hospital
were made by his sister who was ten years Michael's junior and
was too young to remember Michael's activities with UFO's and
recruitment by the government, both of which were initially
confirmed before Ron Kruvant's retraction. Michael Wolf himself
admited in an interview that his sister was mentally disturbed
so it's perhaps no surprise that she now accuses Wolf of this.

As for your statements that Michael was not in the military,
close to the Clintons, and had no degrees, these are based on
lack of documentation. Lack of documentation does not prove
Michael Wolf was lying, it merely points to that and a number of
alternative explanations. The one I believe is applicable is
that he worked on classified projects as he claimed and was
verified by a number of researchers. Jim Courant, Paola Harris
and Michael Hesseman all personally travelled to Connecticut to
interview Michael Wolf, check his documents and overhead
converstations he had with medical experts and acclaimed
scientists. They were convinced he was legitimate. You never
physically visited Michael Wolf to check his claims as Courant,
Harris and Hesseman did. I believe their conclusions are more
reliable than your own and I consider Michael Wolf to be a
legitimate whistleblower.

>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

Here we go ahead with your document searches. Stan, I'm puzzled
why you won't accept that the documentary records of those
working on classified projects can and are regularly removed or
tampered with as a condition of employment to guard against
unauthorized disclosure of information. Perhaps you have you not
sufficiently thought through what has been set up by the
government. That's surprising since you have researched both
Roswell crash and some of the Majestic Documents (EBD and SOM)
and find them credible. Don't you see the implications of your
own research? If Roswell and the Majestic documents are
credible, then a system is in place to systematic discredit and
intimidate whistleblowers/witnesses and remove public records of
employees to maintain secrecy. That's the logical outcome of
your own research and yet you refuse to accept this.

>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

The scientists who produced the 4 atoms of element 115 said that
in theory a stable isotope could be created using technology
that doesn't presently exist on earth. That means that
extraterrestrials with advanced technologies can produce stable
isotopes of 115. Since Lazar claimed that the 500 pounds came
from ET sources, then Lazar's testimony was validated.

>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.

In your view Stan, are there any legitimate whistleblowers
discussing classified projects involving EBE's and/or ET
technologies?

As for different categories of evidence, I think it would be
very useful to have a discussion on what constitutes hard, soft
or medium evidence. We could then rank them and come up with
criteria for how to work with whistleblowers that have more or
less in each of these categories. In my view, soft evidence
involves factors such as whistleblower credibility, integrity,
coherence and consistency. Taking a lie detector test for
example is soft evidence. Lazar did well in his lie detector
tests so I would cite that as soft evidence in his favor.

<snip>

>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.....

What precisely did Corso say in the sworn statement to Gersten?
I'd like to see it. Corso, as I showed in the quote I supplied,
only ever said that he served on the staff of the National
Security Council. He was not a member and did not claim to be.
You are defending a red herring in insisting that Corso claimed
to be a member of the NSC. He was on the staff of the NSC. These
are very different job descriptions.

>>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

I never said your requests were FOIA, only that if you wanted to
know who attended NSC meetings you would not be able to do it if
it weren't declassifed, and that FOIA would not help in finding
out. I would expect that there's a huge amount of declassified
NSC info, but that does NOT mean that attendence at NSC meetings
was part of the declassified material. You are making a major
error here in making such an assumption. What the librarian told
you was that they could not locate evidence that he attended NSC
meetings in the declassified material that is available to the
general public. They could not look into the classified material
and tell you if Corso did or didn't attend the NSC meetings.
They would be breaking the law in doing so. Since you had no way
of knowing how many of the NSC meetings were declassified in
terms of attendence, then your question about Corso's attendence
was erroneous. As I said earlier, you asked the wrong question.

Also, when did I say anything about Corso being an important cog
in the NSC wheel? He was a Lt Col appointed as a staff member to
the NSC comprising Cabinet level officials. He was no important
cog. The important stuff happened when he was head of the Army's
Foreign Technology Desk at the Pentagon. Why are you focusing on
his NSC service when you have had no luck in finding
documentation to satisfy your penchant for documentary
verification of whistleblower testimonies?

>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.

The attendence at NSC meetings is classified information. That
is well known among foreign policy professionals and I'm
surprised you weren't aware of this. The records of meetings,
minutes, attendence, etc., remains classified until such time as
its release doesn't threaten national security and in accord
with the declassification set in place by any administration. It
may take decades for NSC material to be declassified. As for
doing homework on the NSC, I did my initial research on the NSC
while writing my US foreign policy book (The Hero's Journey
Toward A Second American Century), and also got a chance to quiz
a number of individuals who worked at the NSC while I was
working at the School of International Service at American
University. I'm no expert on the NSC but have a working
knowledge of its processes and classfication system.

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