UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 22

Re: Michael Salla - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 11:09:51 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 14:17:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Michael Salla - Friedman

>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

>>>>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


>>>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.

This is nonsense. Whistleblowers have to provide ID at borders,
at car rental agencies, etc. Verification is a word that doesn't
seem to be in your vocabulary. If a guy says he was in the
military, he should have a DD 214. If he says he is a Canadian,
he should have proof of that. If he says he has 2 degrees or 6
degrees, he should be able to provide some verification. If he
can't provide any, it is reasonable to assume he is lying.Is
there some kind of rule that says if a person calims to be a
whistleblower, he need not provide any verification?

>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.

You are clearly wrong on both counts. Anybody who thinks they
can tell who is lying and who is telling the truth is indeed
naive and unrealistic. The world is full of confidence men and
women. There  is certainly no shortage in ufology. Guy Kirkwood
is a very convincing liar, but his pilots license says he was
cleared to fly single engine planes not the 4 engine planes he
said he was flying. The Air Force says he was never a pilot for
them using any of the three names he has used. Yes, some people
believed him when he said his DD 214 was in a box of papers that
fell off the truck when he moved. And my dog ate my homework, too.

>>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.

Are you really suggesting that liars don't get good at their
trade? Many police departments have bunko squads because there
are liars all over the place. It would be nice to get rid of all
those security checks at airports, but lots of weapons have been
picked up.

>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.

Sorry , but it is my objective reaction to both the total
absence of evidence to support his extraordinary claims such as
having been a pilot and a USAF colonel, and having done 2
theoretical physics PhD Theses, and medical, law and education
degrees, heading a large research institute, which even Dunn and
Bradstreet couldn't find, and the testimony of family and lovers
and paperwork indicating that he flunked out of Upsala, and was
in a mental hospital.

>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.

I made a lot of phone calls to a lot of people at a lot on
institutions including several state agencies. No research
institute. I spoke with family people I reviewed documents.

>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.

Are you saying they turned up degrees, a resume, a charter for
the institute, evidence of being a pilot, being a colonel, being
close to Clinton (Because he said the Clintons slept in the same

>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.

And how is it you have verified this claim? Again, let us get
rid of judges, juries, border guards and hire Mr. Geller.  Just
how did he verify that Michael had done 2 theses, was a pilot,
and a colonel, etc, etc?

>>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.

In other words, verification is unnessesary. Some people want to
believe what they hear from charming fellows and gals. Nobody
wants to admit that they can't tell who is telling the truth.
 Every college registrar to whom I have spoken to verify a
claimed degree has told me they get lots of calls about people
who supposedly attended their institution but had not.

>>>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.

I would take 10 to one odds that the majority on this interest
group would not agree with this appraisal. That he has been
better at raising money would probably be agreed to.

>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.

I take it we must accept your appraisal of this?

>>>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

>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.


>>>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.

Investigation of whistleblower testimonies has to include
verification of claims that should be easy to verify, not just
deciding that because they sound and look honest, they must be
telling the truth.

>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

>>>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?

Michael, I did indeed verify with the U. of Melbourne and
Queensland that you received the degrees you claim  on the dates
you claim, that you have in your curriculum vitae. Now about you
showing us verification on the claims of esteemed whistleblowers
Lazar and Kruvant and Corso?

Oh, by the way, I have a copy of Corso's signed, notarized,sworn
statement to attorney Peter Gersten. Included is this:

"That during my tenure with the defendant (Department of the
Army) I was a member of President Eisenhower's National Security
Council and former head of the Technology Desk at defendant's
research and Development  department...in 1961 I came into
possession of what I refer to as the Roswell File..."

Sure didn't give him much time to perform all the wonders he

Stan Friedman

[ 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