UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 21

Re: Michael Salla - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <lovolution.nul>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 03:29:41 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 10:05:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Michael Salla - Goldstein

>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 04:33:15 -1000
>Subject: Re: Michael 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


>>>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.

>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.


Mr. Salla,

This the last I want to say anything to you as I see no basis
for further communication. I am saying this primarily to
everyone out there.

I stated in the past that I have been professionally trained as
a detective. I did work in that field for a period of time
before medical problems caused me to be less active. I continued
in my other area of interest, music recording engineering.
producing, and management, which did not require the same level
of physical stamina. My health no longer allows me to play
keyboards on stage. In the 1960s and the 1970s I was involved in
aviation, and I had the opportunity to restore historic aircraft
and spacecraft until my health no longer allowed me to continue.
The above are my professional specialties.

I am not trying to put myself on any kind of pedestal but in the
above three areas I have professional education and experience.

In my last post I said that I felt that the most important
methodologies to investigate the UFO phenomenon are those
employed by _professional_ investigators, detectives, and
lawyers. All I ask anyone to do is talk to a lawyer you know, a
detective, or a police officer, and show him or her some of
these whistleblower claims and ask how they would have
investigated them.

Call up a nearby private investigation agency and ask if you can
have 20 minutes of their time by coming into the office and
asking them to show you how they would investigate these
matters. You will learn that there are ways to do background
investigations that are far beyond what is done in the amateur
world of Ufology. There are databases, only available to
licensed detectives, that help you get anything and everything
on anyone anywhere.

Everyone of you have a basic sense of the work and the standards
that _must_ be used in the preparation of a case for
jurisprudence. You have seen enough films and TV shows to have a
basic idea of the standards necessary in court.

As a tip I highly recommend that, if you are going to enter into
a serious relationship with anyone or hire an employee, to pay a
small amount of money to a local private investigation agency to
have them perform a basic background check. A person's hidden
past is better found out early rather than later after harm is

I want to make one fundamental position very clear.

From the professional point of view of a detective, all the ways
you mention employed by amateur UFO researchers, amateur
"investigators" and others who have examined so called
"whistleblowers" and UFO evidence are _strictly_ amateur-hour.

It is a sad state of affairs that neither the budget nor the
professional organizations do not exist to legitimately,
comprehensively, nor professionally handle these matters. That
is to me the primary reason Ufology just keeps limping along
doing the same stuff year after year.

All the above certainly pertains to Dr. Greer.

>>>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


What I said above I firmly believe is what should be the
backbone of UFO investigation. To me social science is _not_ the
methodology to be used for these efforts. Social sciences are
tools that may be employed as aspects of the investigations.
Without performing it properly, using the methodologies employed
in what I am stating, you have nothing. To me it is a major
reason why UFO investigation is not respected in the wider
professional world or by legitimate media.

>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.


As I suggest above go and ask a professional how he or she would
investigate these matters. The researchers and techniques you
have mentioned are mere amateur-hour.

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