UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 18

Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches - Salla

From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 07:15:22 -1000
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 06:38:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches - Salla

>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 10:11:40 EDT
>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:28:53 -1000
>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:37:10 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:07:21 -1000
>>>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>>Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:55:40 EDT
>>>>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>>>>>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>>>Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:06:56 -1000
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Science & Faith Based Approaches

>First, let me apologize for the delay. I had another assignment
>arise and just had no Internet capability while out of pocket. I
>am ready to pick up the gauntlet again.

Aloha Kevin,

I'm glad you are back. I've picked up my Lei and am ready for
our exchange.


>>>This presupposes that the testimonial evidence from the
>>>Disclosure Project and the documentary evidence in the MJ-12
>>>documents can be trusted. I'm suggesting that neither source can
>>>be trusted and therefore any reliance on them as a basis to
>>>argue for a hard cover up is flawed in the beginning.

>>I don't think it's helpful to use the concept of 'trust' in
>>order to assess different sources of evidence, especially when
>>it comes to whistleblowers. What we have are different sources
>>of evidence which we analyse and rank according to a number of
>>criteria, eg., whistleblowers, majestic documents, contactees,
>>witnesses, etc. Some sources will receive a higher ranking than
>>others and therefore higher degree of consideration. That means
>>there's a need to be flexible. Using an either-or approch
>>unnecessarily simplifies the process since it tries to reduce
>>all sources into two categories that which we 'trust and that
>>which we 'don't trust'. That's a methodological error and based
>>on the mistaken emphasis on 'hard evidence'.

>Rather than engage in semantics here, I'll just change the word
>trust to reliable. I will instead write, "This presupposes that
>the testimonial evidence from the Disclosure Project and the
>documentary evidence in the MJ-12 documents is reliable. I'm
>suggesting that neither source is reliable and therefore any
>reliance on them as a basis to argue for a hard cover up is
>flawed in the beginning."

>And I have no objection to creating a reliability scale for this
>alleged evidence of the hard cover up. But the point remains. If
>the MJ-12 and the Disclosure project are unreliable, or have a
>low credibility, then using them to support your argument
>actually weakens it.

I'm glad you agree that a scale might be helpful. I don't quite
follow your point when you say that using sources from MJ-12
and/or whistleblowers actually weakens one's argument. The whole
point of a scale is to assess different sources of evidence, not
prejudge them simply because you have a bias against
undocumented sources. The more sources one uses to build a case,
the stronger it gets. If an extensive number of whistleblowers
say similar things about the way classified projects involving
EBEs/ETVs are run, that strengthens one's argument. You are
suggesting the opposite which is counter intutive.


>>>I was very interested in those claims, talked to Dean and Stone,
>>>and even received a letter from Corso's doctor and had
>>>conversations with Robert Brines, his co-author. I looked for
>>>corroboration of their tales but found them wanting. It is
>>>interesting that their lack of proof for their claims is
>>>considered proof by others. Their records have been altered,
>>>their documentation has been stolen, and they have been
>>>intimidated by this vast conspiracy to silence them.
>>>Interestingly they suggest the government would stop at nothing
>>>to silence them, and Stone even talks about being taken from his
>>>home with weapons pointed at him, but he's still alive to make
>>>his charges" all with no evidence that any of this happen.

>>I can see your point and agree that this is a major problem for
>>UFO/exopolitical researchers. When you have well credentialled
>>individuals coming forth with extraordinary claims with no hard
>>evidence to back them up, then one can say there's no proof.

>I'm not even sure you can call some of these individuals "well-
>credentialled." The claim, by implication, is that anyone with
>a military record has good credentials. Military service does
>not convey some sort of extraordinary reliability on an
>individual. We need something more before we begin to accept so
>many outrageous claims (and yes, I used the word outrageous here
>on purpose).

Long military service records indicate a certain stability of
character, ability to perform responsible duties and the kind of
honor and integrity system that goes in the military. While I'm
a 'peace researcher' by profession and reject violent solutions
to conflicts, I find military values of honor, integrity and
discipline much more a measure of character that the kinds of
values generated in consumerist societies. Many still believe
that military training helps build character especially for the
younger generation. So there's a cultural appreciation that
military personnel are more likely to posses the kinds of
qualities that we look for in whistleblowers, integrity,
veracity, honesty, etc. I am prepared to generalize that the
general public are more likely to believe military
whistleblowers with long service records as individuals more
likely to be telling the truth when blowing the whistle on
egregious government policies. I have find all the military
whistleblowers I have spoken with are exceptional individuals.
Integrity counts especially when it comes to assessing
extraordinary claims that have little if any documentary or hard
evidence to back them up.

>>Furthermore, when researchers encounter claims that the 'proof'
>>has been removed, of intimidation of whistleblowers, of
>>corroborating witness harassment, etc., having occurred, then
>>this presents testimonial evidence that a 'hard cover' up is

>What evidence do you have that "proof" has been removed? How
>in the world could you ever prove something like that? In the
>various records I have seen (Corso and Stone to mention just two)
>there is no evidence they have been altered. Instead, we have
>documents that suggest that both men have been less than honest
>with researchers.

>But, since their claims are not borne out by the record, you now
>suggest that those discrepancies are evidence of the hard cover
>up. I suggest they are evidence that the men are less than

Your argument presupposes the reliability of the very documents
that I'm calling into question. I'm saying that documentary
sources are unreliable because they can be removed, changed or
not reflect an individuals true service record. This happened
with Sgt Stone whose work with the Nuclear Biological and
Chemical Rapid Response team was not included and instead an
entry was made that he only received generic training as a
clerical typist as you have pointed out. I'm calling documentary
sources into question and claiming they aren't reliable in cases
of individuals serving in deep black projects. You are making
the contrary claim that because the documents don't have
references to the alleged training of the individuals for such
projects that they are "less than honest with researchers". Your
reliance on documents from military or government sources to
ascertain whether individuals are telling the truth when
claiming to have worked in deep black projects is counter
intuitive. A hard cover up exists since it is the logical policy
response to national security threat posed by extraterrestrial
visitors whose motivations and activities are not known. Your
own research into the Roswell Crash and Project MoonDust support
the ETH. But you don't support the logical national security
implications of your own research. That's inconsistent.

>>What you have provided is an example of the kind of
>>testimonial evidence that whistleblowers such as Stone give of
>>being physically threatened for revealing information. You ask,
>>where's the physical evidence or proof that Stone was harasssed,
>>and physical evidence removed? I think it should be clear that
>>if such a process is occuring, as Stone and other whistleblowers
>>suggest, such hard evidence will hard to find. Yet we have the
>>whistleblower's testimony, their credibilty in terms of service
>>records and responsible positions, and other information they
>>may provide substantiating both their claims about ETs, and
>>their claims of being harassed.

>So, once again, we're required to fall back to the point that
>their testimony is reliable because of their long service. They
>need to offer nothing in the way of independent corroboration
>because such corroboration would be difficult to find, and that
>the lack of corroboration is, in fact, evidence that they are
>telling the truth. Talk about a circular argument.

Perhaps we can reframe the discussion here. You are thinking in
binary terms of whistleblower testimonies being reliable or
unreliable. I'm using a multivalent logic that suggests that we
have a number of intermediate positions. We can accept that
whistleblowers have sufficient credibility in terms of their
integrity, coherence and consistency to work with their
testimonies. That's want I'm ultimately arguing for here. Give
whistleblowers their due by investing some intellectual capital
into analysing the consequences of their testimonies, and cross
referencing these to paint a picture of what's happening in the
covert world. We'll never get there if we meticulously document
all research conclusions about UFOs/ETs for the simple reason
that documents can be altered or removed as a condition of
employment for those involved in deep black projects.

>>I have made a case that a 'hard cover up' is an underlying
>>premise that needs to be considered by the UFO researcher. This
>>is the most logical conclusion of the overwhelming evidence that
>>the government has initiated a cover up, and secretly
>>institutionalised a process for dealing with UFO/ET affairs. I
>>think if you use a polititical science methodology similar to
>>the social contract theory advocated by John Rawls in a Theory
>>of Justice, you will find that the end result of a rational
>>decision making process for a set of rational decision makers is
>>a secretly institutionalised process for managing ET/UFO affairs
>>since the underlying premise is that the UFO/ET issues presents
>>the most dire national security threat confronting the US and
>>other countries. That's the most logical outcome of a purely
>>rational process which supports my contention that an a 'hard
>>cover up' exists. That means that when whistleblowers such as
>>Stone discuss aspects of the 'hard cover up', physical threats,
>>etc., then these are consistent with the premise that a 'hard
>>cover up' is a logical policy response to the ET/UFO presence.
>>This doesn't prove their claims, but it enables us to seriously
>>consider them and use them in conducting an exopolitical
>>analysis, despite the absence of proof.

>So we argue in a circle again. The fact there is no proof is
>proof that the cover up exists. No proof can be found because it
>has been removed.

The cover up is well documented by many researchers including
yourself. I don't have to prove it since there has been ample
investigation demonstrating that the evidence is being covered
up. Our disagreement stems in the degree to which the cover up
is conducted. You support a 'soft cover up' whereas I contend a
'hard cover up' exists.


>>>>Corso begins his book, The Day After Roswell, by clearly stating
>>>>that he was a Lt-Colonel who headed up the Foreign Technology
>>>>Desk for a two year period in the 1960s. I don't have access to
>>>>his military records so I can't confirm or deny what happened
>>>>upon his retirement and the details of his promotion.



>>>In his proposal, he included some sample chapters including
>>>something he called a "Precede" in which he writes about his UFO
>>>experiences, and then signs it, "P.J. Corso, Colonel, USA, Ret."
>>>Again, he just wasn't a colonel though he represented himself as

>>I think his long military service record is the basis of his
>>credibility, and he rightly claims he was a Lt-Col when he
>>became chief of the Foreign Technology Division. The absence of
>>evidence of his promotion from Lt-Col to Col upon retirement is
>>something that I consider to be a red herring designed to shift
>>attention from the thrust of his claims concerning his role in
>>the dissemination of ET technology. Absense of evidence doesn't
>>mean it didn't happen.

>First, I believe that inflation of one's credentials, such as
>claiming a higher rank, is significant. In the recent past
>people have lost their jobs for claiming positions and education
>they didn't have. Nearly every week we read about someone who
>has done just that. Corso did that by claiming to be a colonel
>when he was a lieutenant colonel.

Since Corso's military service record is not in the public
domain I can't confirm what's in it and have to rely on
statements from his book and interviews. He clearly refers to
the highest rank he achieved while on active service as Lt Col.
That was also the rank he possessed while working and/or heading
the Foreign Technology desk at the Pentagon from 1961 to 63.
What subsequently happened upon his retirement in terms of his
rank and how that is reflected in his service record is not very
clear. If he claims that he was promoted in the reserves and if
this is somehow not recorded in his service record, then the
most plausible explanations are: 1. promotions in the reserves
are recorded differently than promotions while on active
service; or 2. that it was removed from his record prior to the
publication of his book. Either is possible since Corso was only
revealing as much as he felt he was being 'permitted' to do.
Corso was part of an acclimation program to prepare the public
for possible UFO disclosure.

>Second, this absence of evidence rule doesn't apply here. It was
>Corso who made the claim and it is Corso's responsibility to
>prove it, not mine to disprove it. In some cases absence of
>evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

>What you are suggesting here is that we ignore a serious claim
>by Corso that has not been proven to be accurate. You are
>suggesting that such a claim is of little importance while I
>suggest that it suggests something about the man's character.

In case you don't recall, Corso is dead and his son no longer
responds to UFO researchers to clarify these matters. Corso's
central claims concern what occured while he was on active
military duty as a Lt Col in the Pentagon. What happened in his
retirement is not of public interest and only a peripheral issue
since there is presently no way to determine what happened. You
seem to delight in discrediting a man who cannot defend himself
from your allegations. I think we need to focus on his central
claims rather than red herrings designed to distract us from the
ET technology that he allegedly disseminated into the private

>>There is also the possibility that his
>>service record was purposely altered to create some
>>Inconsistencies - but of course in your ideal world of UFO
>>scientific research using empirical methods, such Machiavellian
>>methods don't happen.

>The real question would be why alter his records about this?
>There is no purpose in it. Yet, if he was promoted upon
>retirement, he would have been given such records and there
>would be photographs of the promotion, yet none exist. All he
>could offer was a lame excuse about the situation, which, in and
>of itself is quite telling.

Records are altered to discredit whistleblowers if they reveal
information concerning classified projects concerning EBEs or
ETVs. Since Corso was revealing information about both, then
there would be reason for his records to be altered.


>>>>As far as I'm aware, Corso never claimed to be a member of MJ-
>>>>12, he just referred to its existence and composition.

>>>In the proposal for his book he writes, "recounts the continuing
>>>reports of UFO activity that passed through Eisenhower's White
>>>House, when the author was on assignment there, to the staff of
>>>MJ-12." That sounds like a fairly blatant claim that Corso was a
>>>member of MJ-12" a claim that did not make it into the final
>>>version of his book.

>>You have misread what the passage suggests. Corso informed us
>>that he served on the staff of MJ-12 when he was at the White
>>House. I think that MJ-12, is similar to a Congressional
>>Committee, e.g., the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that
>>has staffers appointed to serve the Commitee. If one is on
>>assignment to the staff of a Senate Committee, for example, then
>>that doesn't make one a Senator, one is just a staff member.

>You might have missed the point. He claimed he worked for MJ-12.
>He claimed he was on the staff. While he might not have been one
>of the twelve, he was making a claim about his association with
>MJ-12 that was not true. Here is a significant discrepancy that
>you have decided to ignore with some analogy that doesn't quite

What point did I miss? You claimed he was a member of MJ-12 and
I corrected you. Now you say he worked for MJ-12 which is a more
accurate description of his true role as a staffer. Now why do
you say it was not true that he worked for MJ-12? I suppose you
will say that since there is no documentation supporting his
claim of having been on the staff of MJ-12, then there's nothing
to substantiate his allegations. I see you are a true believer
in finding documentation to validate any claims made by
whistleblowers, even working for MJ-12. Do you truly believe
that staff members working for MJ-12 will have a documentation
trail available to the general public for verification purposes.
I think MJ-12 is a little smarter than that.

>>>>Corso discussed the circumstances surrounding his use of Strom
>>>>Thurman foreword in an interview with Michael Lindeman - see:


>>>>Corso claims he told Thurman of the UFOs he discussed in his
>>>>book and that Thurman nevertheless agreed to write the foreword
>>>>for the Day After Roswell and understood it was about UFOs. It's
>>>>likely that during his employment service for the former Senator
>>>>he discretely divulged some of the projects he worked on despite
>>>>his alleged vow to Lt Gen Trudeau to not go public. Thurman may
>>>>have written the foreward as a favor to a former close advisor
>>>>but once his staffers discovered what was in Corso's book, they
>>>>quickly rescinded permission for the foreword to be used.

>>>Yet in his proposal letter he said that Thurmond had written a
>>>glowing introduction to his book "I Walked with Giants: My
>>>Career in Military Intelligence." That introduction was then
>>>used for his Roswell book" before Thurmond and his aides
>>>insisted that it be removed. Switching the story and the
>>>introductions around does not speak well of Corso.

>>As I said earlier, Corso spoke to Thurman about UFOs and
>>Informed him that was the subject of his new book. Just because
>>Thurman's aides persuaded Thurman to withdraw the preface,
>>doesn't mean Corso was being disingenous here.

>No, it is quite clear in his proposal for his book that the
>introduction written by Thurman was for a different book. Why is
>there no mention of Roswell or UFOs in that introduction? Why
>were Thurman and his staff so outraged when they learned the
>truth, if the Senator knew this in the beginning? It certainly
>does mean that Corso was being disingenuous here. How many times
>do we need to find something like this before you begin to think
>that maybe the guy just wasn't who he claimed to be?

If you read the interview with Michael Lindeman whose URL I
provided above, it's quite clear that Corso claims he told
Thurman the book was about UFOs. So what happened subsequently
was a result of Thurman's staffers withdrawing the preface
rather than Thurman himself denying his approval. Do you really
expect me to believe that in Corso's proposal he describes
Thurman having written a a preface for another book that Corso
was intending on using for the Day After Roswell? That is
inconsistent with what he says in the Lindeman interview. I
think you are clutching at straws in trying to make your case
that Corso can't be trusted because of the Thurman preface issue

>>>>As for the veracity of the photos in Corso's books, I don't know
>>>>where you got your information that they are "well known fakes".
>>>>There may be considerible controversy about them, but that
>>>>doesn't make them fakes. I don't know about Kaufman and the
>>>>incident you are referring to. As for the alleged convoy through
>>>>Ft Riley, the 'friend' was in fact the sergeant on guard duty
>>>>and had peered into the contents of the boxes he was guarding.
>>>>The Sergeant had some time invited Corso to join a bowling team
>>>>so that was the basis of their relationship. Corso was a Major
>>>>at the time and the Sergeant an NCO, so it's a bit of a stretch
>>>>to say he was Corso's friend.

>>>The picture in his book, labeled, "Lt. Col. Corso was never able
>>>to confirm the veracity of the following purported UFO
>>>surveillance photos, which were in Army Intelligence files as
>>>support material for the R&D project to harvest Roswell Alien
>>>technology for military purposes." The picture under that
>>>caption is of a domed disk flying over some hills. Ed Ruppelt
>>>identified it as a 1935 Ford hubcap. Look magazine, in 1966,
>>>identified it as a hoax and provided the name of the
>>>photographer who admitted it was a hoax. Guy B. Marquand, Jr.,
>>>said that he was sorry to disillusion people and that "I was 21
>>>years old at the time and just having fun."

>>I recall being told a story by Wendelle Stevens about George
>>Adamski responding to Coral Lorenson's abrasive question 'how
>>did you do it? (fake his flying saucer photos'). Adamski said
>>that he picked up a hub cap and threw it into the air, and then
>>took some pictures. Lorenson said 'thanks' and then proceeded to
>>condemn Adamski as a fraud. He was pulling her leg but she took
>>him seriously. Corso would undoubtedly have known about the 1966
>>Look article and Ruppelt's asssessment of the photo, but still
>>went ahead to include it in his book. Personally, I'd say if
>>Corso was suggesting it was real despite the Look article and
>>Ruppelt's assessment, I'd be inclined to accept Corso's
>>judgement over someone who alleges to be the photographer
>>recanting his testimony. It seems you have more faith in a self-
>>confessed liar "having fun" than the judgement of a former Lt
>>Col in the US Army.

>Let me get this straight. We have the editors of LOOK saying the
>picture is faked? and they have no reason to make that claim
>unless they believe it. We have Ed Ruppelt claiming it was
>faked? and we have no reason to suspect his honesty, especially
>when we look at his record as the Chief of Blue Book. And we
>have the guy who took the picture saying he faked it. Given all
>that, you'd rather believe that Corso was right? This I just
>don't get.

What else would you expect the editors of LOOK to say if the
photographer claimed it was something he contrived out of fun?
As for Ruppelt's statement, I don't know enough about the
context. Ruppelt had few resources during his brief reign as
Project Blue Book chief and Project Blue Book researchers were
well known for coming up with spurious explanations for all
sorts of UFO phenomenon. If someone thought it COULD be a hub
cap, then that was duly recorded as an explained UFO. That was
the quality of Project Blue book investigations. Perhaps this is
all Ruppelt based his observation on.

>And yes, in this case, I have more faith in the photographer,
>the editors of LOOK and Ed Ruppelt than I have in Corso. (And I
>won't even mention the background of Wendelle Stevens.)

I've had some discussions with Wendelle Stevens and think he's a
first rate researcher that has paid a steep price for his
integrity in bringing out the truth of his research into human-
extraterrestrial contacts. Those who malign him do a disservice
to the complexity of the ET phenomenon but that's a discussion
that deserves its own thread rather than discussing in this
already lengthy one.

>>>It was Kaufmann and Corso on Coast-to-Coast talking about their
>>>experiences with these highly classified projects, spilling
>>>their guts for the world. What struck me was that Corso never
>>>disagreed with Kaufmann in a conflict of points, but always
>>>bowed to him because Kaufmann claimed to have been on the
>>>original retrieval. Kaufmann has been found to be a fraud,
>>>inventing his tale. Seems to me that Corso would have known
>>>that, had he been who he claimed to be.

>>I don't know enough about Kaufmann to respond about his
>>legitimacy as a researcher. I don't see why you would assume
>>that if Kaufman were a fraud, Corso should have known about it.
>>Corso left military service in 1963 and apparently ceased to
>>have a further role in the world of UFOs, crash retrievals. As
>>far as I can tell, Corso claims to have played a role in
>>disseminating ET technology, he never claimed to possess
>>omniscience about UFO researchers and witnesses.

>Because Corso, is he was who he claimed, he would have seen the
>holes in the Kaufmann tale. But rather than challenge him, Corso
>bowed to him. It suggests that Corso had no sort of
>extraordinary knowledge.

Corso's claim to extraordinary knowledge occurred from 1961-63,
and perhaps during his service to the MJ-12 committee while in
the NSC. I don't know enough about Kaufmann to determine his
integrity and what Corso really thought about him.

>>>I read Corso's claim about his friend and understood that Corso
>>>was a major and the friend a sergeant who had invited Corso to
>>>bowl with his team. However, it's also a stretch to understand
>>>how a convoy leaving Roswell would pass close to Ft. Riley on
>>>its way to Wright Field in Ohio, or how an NCO, a sergeant of
>>>the guard, would be out among the classified boxes or why he
>>>would be digging through them. This is a serious breach of
>>>security, not to mention the fact that the boxes should have
>>>been in a locked area with guards posted outside it, not inside,
>>>going through the material.

>>I think that this was the first time that an EBE had been
>>shipped by the US Army/Air Force. Their security procedures were
>>probably lax to begin with, but later amended to the standards
>>you suggest.

>Oh, please. Maybe lax. Amended later? They had been dealing with
>classified material for years. Take out the alien body and put
>in, oh, I don't know, transport of the Norden Bombsite during
>World War II and you have the same thing. Transportation of
>highly classified material over the road. So, the procedures
>wouldn't have been lax? except in Corso's warped version of
>the truth. (And yes, I used the word warped on purpose.)

I think the procedures for dealing with classified exoplosive
material and extraterrestrials would have been very different to
start with. I doubt many servicemen would have the inclination
to look into a crate filled with explosives, but an EBE may be a
different matter. Servicemen have curiosity after all.

>>>I suppose it will do no good to point out that the FBI (another
>>>of those hated government institutions that lie about everyone)
>>>noted, about Corso, "He has been a thorn in our side because of
>>>self-initiated rumors, idle gossip and downright lies he has
>>>spread to more or less perpetuate his own reputation as an
>>>intelligence expert."

>>I agree, it doesn't help your case to reference the FBI as a
>>truthful source for the credibility of Corso.

>Clearly you don't recognize sarcasm when you read it. Here is
>just one more assessment that suggests Corso was not only
>telling tales about his UFO experiences, but he had a history of
>doing that about a variety of subjects. In those other cases,
>everyone recognized what he was. In the UFO field, he becomes a
>"whistleblower" to be acknowledged rather than just one more
>crank with a wild story.

So Corso is a crank because the FBI put out a story that Corso
couldn't be trusted. You are truly clutching at straws here in
support of your weak efforts to dismiss Corso's credibility.

>>>Corso claimed in a sworn statement that one of his Army
>>>assignments had been to the National Security Council during the
>>>Eisenhower Administration and that he attended NSC meetings.
>>>Stan Friedman checked with the Eisenhower Library and was told
>>>that such claims were false. Of course, this is just another
>>>government agency changing the records.

>>It's very possible that the Eisenhower Library lacked records to
>>substantiate Corso's claims. This absence could be explained in
>>a number of ways, incomplete records, Stan not having access to
>>the right files, altered records, etc. This doesn't prove that
>>Corso's claims were false, they just couldn't be substantiated.
>>I get the sense you are fishing for ways to discredit Corso, and
>>want to avoid looking at possibilities that migh explain some of
>>the discrepancies in his testimony. Corso's military credentials
>>are impressive, he worked as the head of the Army's Foreign
>>Technology Department, worked as a Congressional Aid to Senator
>>Thurman, and has made extraordinary claims about ET technology.
>>I don't see why analysing the (exo)political implications of
>>Corso's testimony is so strongly resisted by members of the
>>forum who focus on whatever minor inconsistency they can find in
>>Corso's military records or statement. It seems you advocate
>>focusing on the ABC's of UFO research, and don't want to reach
>>the X,Y,Z, where exopolitical analysis begins.
>Yeah, the Eisenhower Library lacked the records to substantiate
>Corso's claim, not because those records were incomplete, but
>because they never existed in the first place. Here is another
>significant discrepancy that you choose to ignore by saying
>maybe, possibly, perhaps, but have no evidence to even begin a
>simple investigation, other than the word of a man who has been
>caught several times making false claims.

As I've pointed out in the thread with Stan, the Eisenhower
library can only permit access to unclassified documents. If
Corso did serve on the staff to MJ-12 as a representative for
Eishenhower, then it's clear that records of his attendence
would still be classified. So why focus on the Eisenhower
Library as a source of documentation on Corso who allegedly
worked for MJ-12 while at the NSC?


>>I think your style is similar to a court room attorney who wants
>>to shift from an examination of substantive issues to witness
>>credibility. You point out some minor inconsistencies which lead
>>to your evaluation that the witness is not reliable, and that
>>their testimony should be discarded. That's a time honored legal
>>strategy that works well enough in a judicial system that
>>operates on transparency and legitimate legal processes, but is
>>seriously inadequate for whistleblower testimonies in a national
>>security environment where the bulk of hard evidence is
>>classified, and where there is ample reason to believe a 'hard
>>cover up' is underway. I have seen no evidence that you are
>>willing to explore the implications of the whistleblower
>>testimonies offered by Corso since you offer as the threshold
>>for such consideration satisfaction of minor inconsistencies
>>that I and likely many others view to be red herrings.

>And I have seen no evidence that you will even consider cogent
>arguments if they don't conform to your already preconceived
>notions and rigid belief structure. Any evidence to the contrary
>is dismissed by suggesting my style is similar to a courtroom
>attorney, as if this is something bad. But the truth is, if
>someone lied about his credentials, made false claims, and
>offered no proof for his tales in one arena, then we can expect
>the same in another. I offer the evidence for this and you
>simply dismiss it out of hand.

I've looked closely at your arguments and have found nothing
compelling in them. Your arguments that Corso is being "less
than honest' are red herrings. You appear to be intent on
shifting attention away from Corso's claims concerning the ET
technology he disseminated into the private sector while working
at the Foreign Technology Department at the Pentagon. Since
that's a position he clearly held, then surely the possibility
that he distributed such technology is the key issue here;
rather than questions over Strom Thurman's foreword; Corso's
promotion to Col in the reserves; a controversial photo in his
book, deferring to Kaufman; etc., all red herrings that get us


>>>Now, we have Stone carrying some with a top secret cover sheet
>>>through his living room. That is pure showboating because you
>>>just don't transport top secret material that way. He was attempting,
>>>through this little show, to prove how important he was. It was
>>>the same thing, pointing out the sticker on his car and suggesting
>>>that officers had blue stickers and he had a blue sticker. It was an
>>>attempt to increase his credibility by suggesting he was something
>>>that he was not. Neither of these points is trivial, as you suggest.

>>You are overreaching in your inferences here. An individual's
>>behavior when dealing with classified material may be influenced
>>by a range of factors that may account for his behavior. Just
>>because Stone was handling what he claimed to be classified
>>material in a way you consider to be cavalier, doesn't mean it
>>wasn't what he claimed it to be. Whistleblowers by definition
>>are mavericks who are dissatisfied with rules, procedures and
>>policies that restrict information on ETs/UFOs.

>An individual's behavior when dealing with classified material
>is influenced by the law. If Stone was carrying classified
>material (meaning top secret) material through his house, then
>he was going to jail and these hard cover up guys would need to
>do nothing other than charge him with mishandling classified
>material. Look what happened to the guy in Los Alamos who they
>just suspected of mishandling classified material.

I agree that those carrying classified material can go to jail
if caught. If Stone is correct that he possesses such material,
then it's very likely that he is part of a secret acclimation
program in case of a catastrophic breakdown in secrecy. As you
might appreciate, one needs to plan for the contingency that the
secrecy system collapse due to uncontrollable events - ETs
landing on the White House lawn, a disclosure announcement by a
major Western nation, etc. So whistleblowers like Stone are
allowed to come forward and hold on to some classified material.

>>As for pointing out to you the color of the sticker on his car,
>>there may be a number of explanations. Stone may have been
>>alluding to preferential treatment he was receiving due to his
>>alleged background. Again, I see the same pattern in your
>>evaluation of Stone, pointing out minor inconsistencies in his
>>story and claiming that when you add them all up, he has no
>>credibility. The implication being that we shouldn't consider
>>his testimony as anything upon which UFO/Exopolitics researchers
>>might benefit in understanding alleged crash retrievals.

>No, Stone was attempting to tell me that he was really an
>officer, not knowing that I understood the system. This is a
>significant embellishment that goes to the credibility of the

I am aware that Stone was assigned an individual who referred to
Stone as Colonel. Stone nowhere states that he completed officer
training and indeed claims that he refused to attend 'the
School' - an elite secret instituation for training military
personnel in the whole range of extraterrestrial related
material. Stone claimed graduates of such a school were too
elitist for his liking. So all Stone is claiming is that he was
given privileges normally according to an officer. He did not
claim to ever be an officer. That would explain the blue
sticker. In my view, this is quite plausible given Stone's role
as a whistleblower who is part of an acclimation program.

>>While I understand that there is a need to scrutinise the
>>background of whistleblowers in order to assess whether they are
>>telling the truth, we need to balance this scrutinity with an
>>appreciation of the significance of their claims and the
>>likelihood that they may be subject to various forms of
>>harassment, discrediting, etc., from the 'hard cover up'. There
>>is for example the case of an independent Canadian researcher
>>who was threatened for covering Stone's story, and arranging for
>>documents Stone forwarded to be circulated in Canada (see
>>http://www.rense.com/ufo6/terrorist.htm). That is corroboration
>>that Stone had information that went far beyond what a typist or
>>clerical administrator would have after a 22 year service record
>>as you have suggested, and helps establish his credibility as a
>>whistleblower revealing information on crash retreivals. I think
>>your evaluation of Stone is unbalanced and ignores evidence that
>>he is being subjected to harassment, threats, and discrediting.
>>This makes your focus on inconsistencies in his service record,
>>behavior and testimony questionable.

>I looked at the story and it is, once again, allegations with no
>sort of evidence. I can point you to any number of people who
>believe what Stone said, but none of them can offer any evidence
>that it is true.

Now this is simply not true. In your own book, Project Moon
Dust, you credit Stone with being the first individual to expose
Project Moon Dust through FOIA requests focused upon an elite
Air Intelligence unit at Fort Belvoir, Virginia (p. 151). In
1991, upon his retirement, Stone began to accumulate numerous
documents supporting the existence of Projects Moon Dust and
Blue Fly as focused on the retreival of UFOs. Where could Stone
have possibly gained the specific knowledge of where Project
Moon Dust was located, the units involved, the places they
visited to retreive UFOs, etc., unless he was as he claimed an
individual that worked himself directly in Project Moon Dust?
Your argument that Stone was nothing more than administrative
typist with clerical duties falls apart because of the detailed
knowledge Stone had of Moon Dust and Blue Fly. As you know, FOIA
requests are only as successful as an individual has specific
information of what is being requested. General requests get
nowhere. Stone had specific information since he had worked with
the Project Moon Dust teams. Stone's documents gained through
FOIA requests are hard evidence that he did serve on such elite
UFO crash retreival teams.

Your efforts to debunk Stone are a failure. He is as he claims a
whistleblower who worked with elite teams that focused on the
retreival of crashed UFOs and has detailed knowledge of a number
of crash retreivals during his period of service. The general
dismissiveness of the UFO community of Stone's claims are a sad
reflection of the kinds of biases and methodological failures of
veteran UFO researchers.


>>>Why would Dean be on an intelligence briefing team? He had no
>>>special training for that. His records show that from mid-1963
>>>to mid-1967 he was at NATO as a master sergeant assigned as the
>>>Chief Clerk Language Service Branch which is hardly the same as
>>>being an intelligence analyst, a position for which he was not
>>>trained. His record shows no assignments as an intelligence
>>>analyst. There is nothing classified about the general training,
>>>and in fact, for those who have access to the Army's Distance
>>>Learning Training Facility (meaning it's on-line), training for
>>>an intelligence analyst is available. So, if Dean's claim was
>>>accurate, the training would be in his record, but if the
>>>assignment was classified, it would show a generic assignment.

>>Dean claims that he received a "Cosmic Top Secret" clearance
>>while serving on the briefing team for the SACEUR. "Cosmic" is a
>>security classification that likely refers to a
>>compartmentalised program set up by the US Army and NATO to deal
>>with UFO/ET related matters.

>No, it doesn't. It is a NATO classification that distinguishes
>it from top secret material originated in other locations. It
>suggests nothing about UFO/ET matters.

Thanks for acknowledging the existence of 'Cosmic' as a NATO
classification for a compartment of classified information
pertinent to NATO. Now since COSMIC is a compartmentalised
classification category of NATO, we have no way of knowing
whether it did deal with UFOs other than through the testimonies
of whistleblowers such as Dean. Now as for your suggestion that
COSMIC has nothing to do with UFOs, I suggest that NATO would
most certainly have had a classification for a phenomeon which
it most likely knew to be real, and which constituted a credible
security threat for the NATO alliance. That can be deduced from
your own Project Moon Dust book substantiating the existence of
Air Force investigation teams such as the 4602 Air Intelligence
Service Squadron that secretly focused on the investigation of
UFOs (p.85) . As you say in your book, the Air Force took UFO
investigations seriously despite the Blue Book charade, and had
its own investigatory teams, and we can deduce, its own
analytical team which Stone also refers to as a unit located at
Fort Belvoir. It's logical to assume the same occured for NATO,
and Dean had the necessry COSMIC classification to read what was
contained in the threat assessment of UFOs studied by NATO
investigatory units.

>>It would be reasonable to conclude
>>that someone receiving such a "Cosmic" classification and having
>>access to the documents requiring that classification would have
>>their service record not include the specialized training
>>required for the performance of their duties.

>No it wouldn't. There is nothing about the training that would
>demand that it be hidden. As I have tried to explain, the
>training is of a generic nature that provides no clues as to
>specific assignments, especially when those assignments might be
>classified. A Special Forces soldier will have his record show
>that training, even if he is then assigned to a clandestine
>operation. If a soldier makes a claim about such a clandestine
>operation, but there is no training on his record, then his
>claim should be suspect.

As you said in an ealier post, for those doing classifed
assignments in the military, all that appears on their service
record is the generic training they performed rather than the
specific assignments they performed. As you say in the case of
Special Forces training, this is generic training and not
classified so it appears on an individual's service record.
However, what of the generic training for those individuals who
are trained to deal with information or activities concerning
the UFO phenomenon? Is the generic training classified so that
you have a cover generic training appearing instead? For
example, for those trained in the retreival of crashed UFOs,
e.g. Project Moon Dust, is the generic training classified so
what appears on the individuals service record a cover such as
administrative typist. Stone for example claims he was trained
with a Nuclear, Biological Chemical Weapons Response team that
was never included on his service record. So here Stone is
receiving generic training that is classified. All that is on
his service record is training as a administrative typist which
is the cover used. So presumably the same happened with Robert
Dean whose official assignment at NATO was a Master Sergeant
assigned as the Chief Clerk Language Service Branch. Again, we
have clerical duties presumably used as a cover for the generic
training in dealing with sensitive intelligence information
concerning UFOs. If Dean was targetted to deal with UFO
sensitive material, it's very like that like Stone, his generic
training was classified, and a cover was used.


>>OK, so you are not saying that the Assessment is a hoax, but
>>that the commanding officer nonchalently threw a copy Dean's way
>>to keep him awake. So the implications are that either the
>>commanding officer was conducting a massive breach of security
>>(unlikely); or that the Assessment was a hoax (you claim not to
>>be saying this); or that you have mistakenly contextualized the
>>process by which Dean was given access to the Assemement. Of the
>>three, I think the third implication is more accurate.

>No, I said it wasn't a hoax designed to keep people awake. And I
>agree that we wouldn't have an officer cavalierly giving Dean a
>copy to read to keep him awake (Dean's claim on more than one
>occasion). Actually the most likely scenario here is that Dean
>invented The Assessment and no such document exists.

Now why wouldn't there be such a document? As you claim in your
Project Moon Dust book, the 4602 was an Air Force Unit whose
task was to retreive crashed UFOs. There also would have been an
analytical team whose job would be to provide the kind of
intelligence assesement that would give senior military officers
the information they need to make decisions. Now why wouldn't
NATO have done exactly the same? The final product would have
been the kind of Assessment Dean claims he came across during
his duty on the intelligence briefing team with Cosmic
Clearance. It is plausible to assume that something like the
Assesment existed. At question is whether Dean saw it. As you
say, we have to take his word for it. He has put his integrity
on the line as a career NCO who received the highest rank
possible for an NCO, a very hard feat as you claimed earlier. So
Stone lays his credibility on the line in coming forward. That's
all we have to work with. Those who have met with Dean know that
he has enormous credibility and is no fraud.

>But you keep making allegations but offer no evidence to support
>these allegations. In the real world we find that sort of
>evidence because no matter how good the agency is that wants to
>destroy evidence, they can never get it all. There are ways to
>prove the truth, which is why we are able to prove some of the
>things we can. But you have an omniscient organization out there
>that can find and destroy every shred of evidence to prove the
>whistleblowers honest. The more outrageous the tale, the more
>quickly you sign on.

You say: "The more outrageous the tale, the more quickly you
sign on." I've worked as a professional in the academic world
and didn't sign on to tales simply because they were outrageous.
I studied the available material, did field work, interviewed
people, and then wrote analyses, put together initatives, gained
prestigous research grants, etc. When I first began doing my
work on my first ET issue (East Timor) there were those that
claimed that Indonesian human rights abuses in East Timor were
exagerrations, wild tales, etc. At the end of the day, these
dismissive claims were found to have no foundation and East
Timor is now independent. I'm using the same methodology I
applied in my academic career to work out what's happening in
the UFO arena. I focus on military whistleblowers since to me
these are very credible individuals who stake their reputations
on the line in coming forward. You may like to dismiss them as
people fabricating wild tales, but in the cases of the three
whistleblowers we've discussed: Corso, Stone, Dean all served
20+ years in the military and were able to retire with pensions
which is quite an achievement. That means we need to give them a
fair hearing and not accept spurious dismissals that are often
little more than red herrings. Dismissing those such as myself
as 'ingenous believers' who 'sign on' to outrageous tales is
useful rhetoric that will win you wild applause from veteran UFO
researchers, but has little scholarly value as evidenced in my
point by point rebuttals to the red herrings you offer.

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