UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 19

Re: Michael Salla - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <lovolution.nul>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 01:56:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:42:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Michael Salla - Goldstein


>From: Mike Jamieson <mike.jamieson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 10:48:44 -0700
>Subject: Re: Michael Salla

>>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.)

Mike, I am 58 years old. I also first became interested in UFOs
in the 1950s due to my love of aviation and the UFO movies at
that time. I started reading UFO books. I was curious about the
contactees and why each one had his own story. My father was a
psychiatrist and he pointed out that each one had no real
evidence other than his own tale. He even took me out to a
contactee gathering at Giant Rock Airport in southern
California. I was a kid so he tried to explain to me in simple
terms the motivations for people to invent stories and why some
people telling them would actually believe the tales they were
telling. He also explained why some people have the emotional
needs to believe almost anything.

I kept reading books, followed the field, and kept up on the
latest from APRO and NICAP. For various reasons my interest at
the time was not strong enough to join either group or go to
meetings. In 1975 I read the front page of the Washington Post
which had the story _reported by the Air Force_ of the UFO
sightings at USAF bases on the US-Canadian border from Maine to
Montana. It was the strongest UFO evidence I had seen to date.
That convinced me to get more serious and I went to meetings,
later joining MUFON. I decided to take a nuts and bolts attitude
to try to get access to proven hard evidence.

This field has always been plagued by people telling wild
stories and naive people willing to believe everything they are
told without any confirmed hard evidence. That is one of the
main reasons I left MUFON several years ago.

You mentioned Burisch above. He has been proven to be a fraud by
Royce Myers at UFO Watchdog. Royce has also nailed the lies of a
number of other claimants. George Knapp from KLAS TV in Las
Vegas has also declared Burisch to be a phony. You and Salla
should also look up the UFO UpDates Archive from when Corso's
book came out. Oddly, Peregrine Communications, the publishing
arm of Collins and Doty, still supports Burisch. I read Greg
Bishop's book Project Beta. It gives a good account of the
Bennewitz saga. I have not read the Collins and Doty book. I
would not trust anything in that book to be truth. Even if
supposedly there is a bit of truth mixed in with disinformation
how would anyone know which is which? Remember the tales of the
aviary in that crappy UFO Coverup Live video?

Stan Friedman, Kevin Randle, and others have repeatedly pointed
out what is factually wrong with some of the alleged
"whistleblowers" yet Salla takes none of that to heart and just
keeps circling in his pointless circular arguments.

My point here is that in the UFO field all kinds of people come
out with stories. Even if you could prove any of these people
were in positions where they really would have access to the
evidence you have no way of knowing if they are telling truth or
disinformation. Stories are just stories. When I was a kid there
was a show named Naked City, a detective show based in New York
City. It began with the expression "there are 8 million stories
in the naked city". Well there are 10 million stories in the UFO
city. Stories mean nothing but tales unless there is real
evidence gathered and proven to be legitimate from other sources
than the tale teller.

In the University I first received a psychology degree. That is
a social science. I had basic training in the scientific method
but I certainly do not consider myself an expert in those areas.
Later I graduated at the top of the class in the regular and
advanced curriculum of the West Coast Detective Academy in North
Hollywood. That showed I had strong natural instincts in being
able to evaluate claims, quality of evidence, and what is
required to come to conclusions and to be able to prove a police
case. I think that is the best methoology to sift the wheat from
the chaff. One does always call in experts in various fields
when required.

I am no expert in ufology but unless the nuts and bolts study
can provide evidence that can be evaluated using the standards
of quality of evidence as practiced by detectives, professional
investigators and attorneys, you just have the soup of stories
and sightings.

Stephen Greer rustled up a bunch of ex-military whistleblowers
for his Disclosure Project but he unfortunately did not vet
those who had dubious tales from those who had strong
backgrounds and who perhaps could lead the way toward some
evidence to confirm their stories. He also diverged into free
energy. He was asking for a congressional investigation but his
sloppiness as mentioned above led to nowhere. You should educate
yourself by looking at the UFO Updates archives of that period.

Mr. Salla says he studies the "whistleblowers" from the
perspective of social science. Yet he seems totally unwilling or
uncapable of beginning to separate truth from fiction, even at
the basic level of whether any of those people are who they are
claiming to be.

>>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.

Mike, Moseley has his own perspective and his own sense of
humor. I have known Dick Hall for a number of years and I have
always held Mr. Hall's research in the highest regard. I think
Moseley was being disrespectful towards him because Dick is not
his fan. Another reason I like Dick Hall is because he has a
very good perspective of what is wrong with ufology. We have had
talks where we very much agree on those points.

I am glad you learned a lot from what Stan Friedman and Kevin
Randle pointed out to Mr. Salla. However if you are serious
about ufology you should have already known the phoniness of the
"whistleblowers" mentioned.

>>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 am not saying to boot him out. I am saying to ignore him
because he just makes his own phony arguments against the facts
that some of the strongest UFO researchers present to him. He
just persists in pointless prose that just circles around and
does not land. It seems a waste of good work to try to point out
anything to Mr. Salla. His list of questions to ask or not ask
was ridiculous. For confirmation I let the famous
"whistleblower" Homer Simpson read them and all he could say was
"Doh!".

I say firmly that Mr. Salla will not be a serious investigator
because he really knows nothing and refuses to even begin to
learn what real investigation entails. He is just a sponge who
absorbs everything he wants to believe without qualifying any of
it. In terms of real investigation he is not yet even a Barney
Fife. Sure, he seems like a polite, nice guy but he is incapable
of really hearing.

>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.

Until Mr. Salla mentioned the above they were not mentioned on
UFO Updates for some time. They were mentioned, discussed, and
dismissed on here a long time ago. I joined this list in its
earliest days and a great deal has taken place. It would behoove
anyone reading this, especially people who have not been on here
for very long, to peruse the archives. They will provide you
with a lot of answers that will advance your knowledge of this
field.


Happy trails,

Josh Goldstein




[ 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