From: Mike Jamieson <mike.jamieson.nul> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:16:14 -0700 Fwd Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 08:19:01 -0400 Subject: Re: Michael Salla - Jamieson >From: Josh Goldstein <lovolution.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 01:56:55 -0700 >Subject: Re: Michael Salla >>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: Re: Michael Salla >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. Yes, I know Knapp has discovered Burisch's history. I knew he was staging a drama just by seeing his story and how it was being presented. Just so, in the same manner, Wolf's story was plainly phoney (and nuts) to my eyes. Something of a generalized storyline, concerning covert government involvement/knowledge, has developed over the decades. Different people with different agendas (but overall centered, it seems, around creative writing projects) have actually invented for themselves a leading and starring role in that covert world! (Michael Wolf and Dan Burisch, for example.) >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. I saw recently where Edgar Mitchell has expressed some complaints about Greer overreaching. That he doesn't want to be associated with Greer's effort. I feel Greer has created blinders by insisting on adhering to his closed ideological system (dissing abduction cases, seeing only lovey dovey aliens, etc.) Plus, I think he may have that bug a lot of ufo investigators have that causes getting excited at startling claims and a numbing of critical thinking centers in the brain. (I'm chosing the medical model as the basis for my hypothesis, not sociological models.) >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. Where they should be studied is in Contemporary Literature classes focused on creative writing exercises in the sci fi genre. >>>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. Yeah, Richard Hall is pretty sharp. I don't take Moseley's characterization of him seriously. (I take it as entertainment.) I remember badgering Moseley to get up on the stage and speak a few words at our White House Demonstration in '93. He did what I expected, which was provide a sharply critical exam of our doings: "You guys are going to have to do a lot better than this!" (Moments later he was at my hotel room with others, cheering CNN's surprisingly high profile and positive report.) >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. Oh... like I said above: phonies! >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. It doesn't matter anyway. Real whistleblowers won't be approaching UFO investigators/analysts. They'll approach mainstream journalists. The decades long efforts of many ufo investigators is to be admired in many ways. But, breakthroughs (imo) won't be coming from their work. Especially breakthroughs engineered by whistleblowers. If anyone really has an awesome inside job involving aliens and all that, would they go to a ufo investigator or a major news outlet if they really desired to blow that whistle?
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp