UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 16

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

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:57:53 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:06:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Friedma

>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul com>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul net>
>Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 12:51:18 -1000
>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

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

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

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


>>>>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.

What is the basis for this claim? Please don't invoke Lazar and
Corso to establish its validity. Do you have a specific example
to provide with a source that can be checked? I supose you are
saying that Lazar had his degrees stolen along with his thesis
and his mind was messed with so he can't provide names of his
profs (Duxler certainly wasn't one) or his thesis advisors. So
how come the government missed Pierce JC?. Or is that because he
was commuting between Pierce in the San Fernando Valley and MIT?

>>>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

>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.

Sorry wrong again. An old friend of Michael's sent a copy of the
court document in which Michael's mother asked for more support
because of the cost of his being in a mental hospital. I have no
reason to think Ron changed his story based on my conversations
with him.

>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.

I haven't talked to the sister. I looked at the document and
talked to Ron and old friends.

>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.

Have you constructed a time-line to allow for all the education
and to become a colonel and a pilot? For a guy who flunked out
of Upsala... no record of law, Medical or Physics degrees, no
names of thesis advisors, no theses or titles therefor, no
pre-med, no physics background before MIT and Cal Tech, no
published papers, no membership in Amer. Phys. Soc. This for a
guy who lived in a tiny apartment and couldn't afford to pay in
advance for his burial..... A guy who claimed to be emeritus
chairman of a Research Institute employing more than 75 people
but whose address was his tiny apartment and for which not even
Dunn and Bradstreet could find any evidence..... Michael, I do
have a nice bridge near Brooklyn that I would be happy to sell
you at a real bargain price

>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.

Funny they couldn't provide copies of any diplomas or the other
missing info noted above. Don't forget I had many phone
conversations with Michael before they came on the scene.

>>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.

Here you go again with a totally unsubstantiated claim. Are you
forgetting I had a Q and Secret clearance for 14 years? Sure
doesn't work well to keep down unauthorized disclosure from Wolf
and Lazar does it?

>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.

This is total hogwash. I accept Roswell and MJ-12 (EBD,TF, CT)
because of all the specific and detailed evidence which I have
provided to back up my claims. I noted certain Tim Cooper
documents were fraudulent because I found the originals which
were emulated. Yes, Michael, documented evidence. I say Menzel
did work for the CIA and NSA, and lots of companies, because I
have copies of his letters to JFK, docs. re. his NSA employment,
statements in his unpublished autobiography, etc. I say Twining
was in NM July 7 - 11 because I managed to locate copies of his
flight log, his pilot's flight log, and a newspaper article
about his being at White Sands. I say TOP SECRET RESTRICTED was
in use during the Ike years because the GAO said they found
examples of it, etc. etc..

You say Wolf and Lazar must have been telling the truth because
there is no evidence because the government must have eliminated
it. Which approach makes more sense?

>That's the logical outcome of
>your own research and yet you refuse to accept this.

My logical outcome is to go with the facts and data and make
claims supported by them. You say since you believe the
government gets rid of evidence that the absence of evidence is
evidence these liars are telling the truth... how quaint.

>>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.

Again we have a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim. The term
stability is used by guys working on high atomic number elements
to mean half lives in the range of milliseconds. This is
comparatively stable because most such isotopes have half-lives
a thousand times shorter.

>>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

I like Salas' testimony (doesn't deal with EBE or ET Tech.)
but no, I know of none. Do you?

>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.


>>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.

Ask Peter Gersten.

>>>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.

Michael, you didn't answer my question about whether you had
been to the Ike Library and what your basis for the claims you
make is. I looked at minutes of many NSC meetings which had been
declassified. Some were indeed censored even ones marked as TOP
SECRET EYES ONLY. But it was never the attendance which was
censored. I have copies here.

>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?

Michael once again you ignore the facts. I have the 4 page legal
size two column roster of the group under Trudeau - from the
Army Archives at Carlisle, PA. There indeed was a Foreign
Technology group. It had two people in it. Corso was the junior
member. I had direct dealings with the USAF FTD at Wright
Patterson in the same time frame. They had dozens of employees -
many of them highly technical, unlike Corso. They had wreckage
in 1947. You are seemingly claiming that Corso, with no
scientific or engineering background, by himself, introduced all
those "new technologies" into US industry, but USAF FTD hadn't
done so, even though an important part of their job was working
with industry, in Operation Gold Eagle, and in projects such as
mine (at Aerojet General Nucleonics) "Analysis and Evaluation of
Fast and Intermediate Reactors for Space Vehicle Applications".
(Russian tech.)

>>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.

So why are so many lists of NSC meeting attendees unclassified?
This is 2005 in case you hadn't noticed it.

>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

We are talking about events and meetings prior to 1962.

Please answer my questions:

1. Have you ever had a security clearance?

2. Have you ever been to the Eisenhower or Truman Libraries?

Stan Friedman
In irritation

[ 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