From: Mike Jamieson <mike.jamieson.nul> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 10:48:44 -0700 Fwd Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Michael Salla - Jamieson >From: Josh Goldstein <lovolution.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:29:02 -0700 >Subject: Michael Salla >Stan Friedman, Kevin Randle, and fellow Listerions, >I appreciate the admirable efforts that have been made to >educate Michael Salla with facts. Unfortunately, as I said in my >last post, he listens but does not hear or understand. It's an interesting discussion. Mr. Salla is probably only exhibiting a lack of UFO history knowledge and a feel for the subject. He says he was never interested before encountering the Greer Disclosure Press Club Conference in 2001. A lot of us have been following this since we were kids in the 50s, and at peak moments of attention ever since. Reading Keyhoe, the Lorenzens, John Fuller, etc. as a teenager in the mid 60s meant we had an exposure to phoney contactee tales and phoney whistleblower tales (remember Aztec and the two con men who were "sources" for that tale)? (I say "we"... but, I don't know how old you are, Josh.) This social scientific approach is interesting. In fact, it's what _I've_ been using when dismissing the obvious phoney balonies amongst the whistleblowers. (BTW, have you all been following the Burisch saga? Now he has surrendered his MJ-12 position and a European has replaced him.) >I am feeling a better strategy at this point would be not to >waste any more efforts at pouring sense into a black hole. I >feel at this point it may be best to just ignore him and move on >in our endeavors. We are providing him an audience on this list >for his absurdity. I can't tell anyone what to do or not to do >but it is obvious that the lack of meaningful dialogue is >leading nowhere. I don't know, I've sure learned a lot of interesting information from reading Stanton Friedman's responses to Michael. And, the dialogue is interesting in fleshing out social scientific issues, like cultic and closed systems or cognitive dissonance experienced by people in group efforts like the ufo field. (It's the gullible and non discriminating folks who suffer cognitive dissonance.) The social sciences can be an useful tool in ufology. Indeed, I recommend highly (to the distress of many luminaries here, I'm sure) "Shockingly Close to the Truth!" by James Moseley and Karl Pflock for an incredibly educational and sociological exam of ufology spanning a few decades. That book helps with perspective (mind you, you can't take anything Moselely says all that seriously..... Look at how he trashes Richard Hall and how his co author doesn't). I don't get the feeling that Michael has a real feel for the whole history as yet, being fresh to the subject like he reports himself being. >Dr. Salla, I don't like to refer to you in the third person but >you are very removed from the more serious UFO investigators and >we are getting nowhere. Entertain the people on your website who >must be titillated by your line of thought. As my dad once >stated, "It does not require tits for unthinking people to be >seduced by titillation". Josh, he probably is _going_ to be a serious investigator. He's only been around for a little while. Since he's clearly an articulate and gentlemanly communicator, no one is going to boot him out. I wonder if characters like Burisch and the late M. W. Kruvant would have even been addressed here at all, even though they seem to have a fairly widespread cult like following "out there". It's good that good information has been exposed concerning Michael Wolf, for example.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp