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 - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 03:33:48 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:25:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Gates

>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 06:19:55 -1000
>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

>>From: Josh Goldstein <lovolution.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 04:11:32 -0700
>>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


>Aloha Dr. Salla,

>>You are relying on proven liars and frauds for

>Ok, so if I and others disagree with you what then? I've
>repeatedly come up with a number of reasons why we should
>seriously consider whistleblower testimonies. I've argued why
>whistleblowers such as Lazar, Clifford Stone, Phil Corso, etc.,
>should be seriously considered. You disagree, that's fine. I
>respect your right to disagree but I will continue to argue that
>you are wrong, and that UFO researchers who dismiss
>whistleblower testimonies concerning ETV's and EBE's are
>gnoring valuable evidence. As for the idea of 'proven liars and
>frauds'. Who sets the criteria for assessing whistleblower
>testimonies and making these conclusions? I haven't seen
>anything but a bunch of ad hoc dismissals based on little more
>than the refrain of 'where's the hard evidence'? That's the
>wrong question. It should be, "has the hard evidence been
>tampered with, withdrawn, etc."

>>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

>I know other researchers who have reached different conclusions.
>For example, Norio Harakaya visited Dulce with a Japanese film
>production crew in 1990 and concluded:

>I've been to Dulce with the Nippon Television Network crew and
>interviewed many, many people over there and came back with the
>firm conviction that something was happening around 10 to 15
>years ago over there, including nightly sightings of strange
>lights and appearances of military jeeps and trucks.

From what I have heard, if you contact Norio now, he back
peddles away from that conclusion.

Dulce/Archeleta Mesa is a stroke job. Always has been, always
will be. The real meat may be in other 'actual' underground
facilities, such as the one at Los Alamos, which supposedly was
called "Dulce" as well as an actual one on the border of Colorado
New Mexico near where I25 crosses over. I suspect it is that
facility that then Congressman Bill Richardson got scolded for
talking about in Taos years ago.

The point being we no longer need USAF disinformation programs.
All we need is to wait for somebody to come out of the wood work
and unload an incredible story. Even though the person telling
the story's background can't be verified, education credentials
can't be verified, researchers will promote the story as the
'gospel-truth', never to be doubted because it tickles their
ears. They then rationalize away any inconsistencies away as part
of some eeeevvvvviiiillll government plot.

You have Bennewitz who was fed stories of underground alien base
at Dulce. You have various researchers who, suddenly got on the
Dulce and other underground base band-wagon. You have the Lear
prounouncement, then Cooper, who supposedly later, Lear claimed,
borrowed some information and suddenly it became the 'Cooper
story'. Then you have all the down-stream Dulce/Lear/Cooper

Lazar's self-pronounced education background couldn't be
verified; Coroso's co-author Bill Birnes said he faithfully
recorded everything out of Corso's mouth - and apparently has
this on 17 or so video tapes. Yet Corso claimed to researchers
that the book was wrong and he wanted to correct it - blah,
blah, blah. None-the-less, we don't know what information Corso
considered to be questionable and what wasn't.

We have the other story-teller whose story was on total cruise
control to the UFO hall of fame till somebody actually checked
into the background and discovered the bankruptcy and many other
inconsistencies in it. Now many of the people who were loudly
promoting it have backed away from him and the story... wanting
to focus on other stories, reports and people.

If you read the Collins/Doty book, the suggestion is that the
facility at Kirtland is an actual communication center in which
we communicate with ET. If this information is correct, I can
see why somebody would want to divert Bennewitz's attention away
from Kirtland and on to the ficitional Dulce.

As to Bishop's book, I personally suspect that why people don't
like it is because their ears aren't being tickled by the
message in the book. Had he remotely hinted or suggested that
the alleged Dulce/Archeleta Mesa base was real, Bishop would
have been hailed as a true hero by the same people crying about
it today.



[ 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