UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 20

Re: Michael Salla - Salla

From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 04:33:15 -1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 12:15:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Michael Salla - Salla


>From: Mike Jamieson <mike.jamieson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:16:14 -0700
>Subject: Re: Michael Salla

>>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

<snip>

>>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.

Aloha Mike, let me point out that subjective belief systems are
a hazard in the social sciences as well as in the physical
sciences. The evidentiary standards one sets for accepting the
testimony of a whistleblower vary tremendously which is why this
debate over whistleblowers is occuring in the first place. One's
position, whether pro or con a particular whistleblower or
whistleblowers in general depends on what one finds to be most
persuasive. Some individuals will simply look into a
whistleblower's eyes, listen to the tone of their voice, observe
their physical posture, and based solely on these physical cues,
make a judgement call on their integrity and veracity. Sometimes
this will be based on little if any hard evidence or
documentation. Is an individual reading another's body language,
visual and auditory cues being naive, and another demanding hard
evidence and documentation being realistic? No, I don't believe
either of these possibilities is true.

From what I have observed from those resisting the veracity of
whistleblower testimonies, that many are very frightened to take
on a whistleblower case without hard evidence or documentation.
Even if the visual, auditory and other physical cues point to
someone telling the truth, they will demand more evidence. Even
if there is some evidence in the form of corroborating witnesses
and photos, this will be insufficient. In the case of Burisch
and Wolf, both were interviewed by credible researchers. Bill
Hamilton has been researching the Burisch case for sometime and
believes he is credible. Bill more than anyone else is the
pioneer in the Burisch case, physically interviewed Burisch,
dealt with his handlers in the covert program Burisch works in,
verified Burisch's credentials, interviewed family members, etc.
I think it's pretty hazardous to dismiss all that simply because
George Knapp doesn't sign on. I have tremendous respect for
George Knapp and his investigative skills in ferreting out
informatiion to support the Lazar case. However, I don't accept
Knapp's assessment on the Burisch case.

As for Michael Wolf, you say he was plainly phoney. Well that's
your subjective reaction to the Wolf material. Others
investigated Wolf seriously. By a 'serious investigation' I mean
actually visiting him, seeing the available documents in his
apartment, looking him in the eye, hearing the tone of his
voice, assessing his body language, etc. You might dismiss these
things as insufficient. In that case I think you are simply
wrong. People are much sharper than you give them credit for in
being able to make a good judgement call by simply reading these
physical cues. Stan Friedman did none of these things. His
investigation of Wolf was incomplete and based solely on what he
could find through documentation and making a few phone calls.
Wolf invited Stan to visit him in Connecticut and check out his
documents. That in my view is really an incomplete
investigation. Stan's research is insufficient to dismiss the
Wolf testimony since others have done more research Wolf and
found him to be credible.

Your own reaction is really typical of those not willing to
explore the veracity of Wolf's claims simply because they seemed
too 'wild'. I spoke on the phone yesterday with Stephen Geller
who conducted another independent investigation of the Wolf
case. Over the period of 18 months, Geller spoke to Wolf every
other night on the phone for an hour or more discussing
different aspects of his case. Much of Wolf's information
impressed Geller as accurate in terms of the literary world in
which Geller moved. Geller is a screenwriter and is an Associate
Professor at Boston University and Director for their
Screenwriting program, so he is someone with tremendous
experience in the literary world. He checked out Wolf's claim,
for example, that he knew Frederico Fellini, and found out that
Wolf was a friend of Fellini and did appear in one of Fellini's
movies. Geller also visited Wolf in Connecticut to get more
information about him and to check out his documents. These
impressed Geller in terms of their scope and implications. How
could someone assess Wolf's case without having checking out his
documents? Geller also checked out Wolf's physical cues and body
language and found him to be credible. Geller concluded that
Wolf was telling the truth. I think that simply saying Geller
was another investigator, like Paola Harris, Jim Courant,
Michael Hesseman that fell for Wolf 'wild tale' is insufficient.
These people all have good street sense and don't just jump on
someone's bandwagon simply because they are telling wild tales.

>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.)

There is much more to these whistleblowers than simply
developing creative writing projects. They have been
investigated thoroughly by a number of credible researchers who
accept their cases. I think you and others on the forum should
not jump to conclusions based on incomplete investigations or
your own biases.

>>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.)

Greer may have screened out the negative ET evidence from some
whistleblowers such as Clifford Stone, but overall Greer did a
tremendous job in amassing a large collection of whistleblowers
to be heard in the one forum. I think many on this forum do not
appreciate the significance of Greer's organizational
achievement and take too many cheap shots at someone who has
done more to further the field of UFO research than anyone else
since that late Donald Keyhoe. Greer's organizational skills are
first class and while one may differ over some aspects of his
screening process, his achievement was to bring into the UFO
arena a fresh cadre of thinkers who would think outside the box
established by veteran UFO researchers. Greer's efforts were
instrumental in my own entry into this field and I'm only now
beginning to appreciate the full significance of the
whistleblowers he worked with. Greer correctly has focused the
attention of the public on 'lies on the ground', rather than
'lights in the sky'. Greer's work is in my view the underpinning
upon which 'exopolitics' is based. While Greer did not coin the
term, I think he is most responsible for making exopolitics a
credible new field in political science.

>>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.

These are nothing more than your own biases. There's nothing you
have specifically mentioned to dismiss these whistleblowers.
Just because their stories appear 'wild' from your perspective,
that doesn't make them untrue.

<snip>

>>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!

This is nothing but the indulgence of your subjective biases to
dismiss whistleblower testimonies that have been investigated by
competent researchers, and found to have merit. Science is based
on much more than systematically applying one's bias to a whole
body of evidence such as whistleblowers.

>>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?

Why don't you take a look at Terry Hansen's book, The Missing
Times, to get a better appreciation of what the mainstream media
is capable of. As for 'real whistleblowers' approaching
mainstream journalists rather than UFO investigators, I think
these are judgement calls that a whistleblower makes. In some
cases whistleblowers such as Lazar and Corso do approach
mainstream media and get their stories out. Others such as
Burisch and Wolf approach UFO researchers. Why, well humans are
complex and whistleblowers are very different in terms of how
they view the mass media. Finally, since you gentlemen are
referring to me in this thread it would be useful if you got the
title right. I have a PhD in Government which you can verify
online at: http://www.exopolitics.org/Salla-PhD.pdf . If you
value documentation so highly, why don't you walk the talk?

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