From: Greg Bishop <exclmid.nul> Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 01:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Fwd Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:14:36 -0400 Subject: Re: Salla on Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Bishop >From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul> >To: To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 04:48:44 -100 >Subject: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta >In giving the side of the intelligence personnel, I think it >would have been fair to have given an objective analysis of the >side of those presenting the 'pro-Bennewitz' case in the UFO >literature. How can one perform an objective study if one side >is presented as little more than a set of unsubstantiated >rumors, urban legends and disinformation, and the other side, >the intelligence side is given an objective analysis using >avaiable documents and testimonies? Basically what you've done >is constructed a straw man in terms of the pro-Bennewitz camp >and given it a knock out punch with your objecive analysis of >the 'anti-Bennewitz' or perspective of former intelligence >personnel. What you see as a "pro-intelligence" stance is something I saw as an attempt to tell a newsworthy story in the most objective way possible, and was not meant to be a research paper or tract. Actually, what I tried to accomplish was to use the standard method for determining as close as one can get to the truth of a story - one that is accepted by almost everyone because it works. The "intelligence side" was checked against the testimony of people who were not in the military, as well as published literature that was, as far as I could tell, not disinformation. I "constructed a straw man" with the words and writings of people whose doom and destruction theories and predictions have not come to pass. How objective can we be with whistleblower claims when we have nothing to corroborate them? At least I had confirming evidence within and outside of the UFO camp forming the basis of the story in "Project Beta." The method you suggest uses the testimony of people who have compelling stories to tell, but no evidence other than that. The "pro-Bennewitz" camp consists of the idea that there was an underground base at Dulce, aliens were using this base to plan an attack on the Earth, and that they were controlling certain people through implanted devices. No one has yet found evidence of any base at Dulce, we have still not been attacked by aliens, and the jury seems to still be out on implants. As I said, there are far better things to place your beliefs in than an underground base at Dulce, New Mexico. I'll use a story to illustrate my thought process: A friend tells me someone is coming to kill me at a certain time. I ask him how he knows this. He tells me the source of the rumor and I check it out by asking others. It appears to be true, but I am not killed and the guy never shows up. Another friend tells me an alien is coming to kill me. I ask him how he knows and he replies that they told him on his radio. There is no way for me to check this information out unless I hear what is on his radio, but what he shows me appears to make no sense. Others say that they know that this is true, but they cannot tell me where they received this information. The alien never shows up and I am not killed. Which is the more likely scenario? That an alien is coming to get me, or the human? People kill other people all the time. Aliens may have killed people (if you believe that there are actually aliens and some are skulking about who want to do this.) Ask anyone outside of the UFO crowd which is more likely. What you propose is a new method of measurement that is only accepted by a few people who have never been vindicated. The result is the same, but the methods I can use to check out the veracity of the story are much different. You cannot easily prove something to people which lies outside of their frame of reference and experience, and I didnít think that the facts of the Bennewitz case warranted this. I was not able to find anything compelling regarding an actual alien invasion or a hidden base. >>I have already addressed the issue of dealing with intelligence >>agents in another post on this list. The gist of my opinion is >>that you must deal with intelligence personnel if you want to >>get to the center of the Government/UFO 'onion'. Listening only >>to those who tell you what you want to hear is just as flawed as >>ignoring them, or worse, believing all the information that they >>feed you is true. It has been almost a quarter century since the >>events described in Project Beta occurred. The passage of time >>and much of the sensitivity surrounding the projects at Kirtland >>have had time to cool down. This makes it more likely that >>people involved in the disinfo campaign at the time can talk >>more freely about the subject. >I don't know how analysing the testimonies of Paul Bennewitz, >Phil Schneider, Michael Wolf, Thomas Castello, Daniel Burisch, >Bob Lazar, Myrna Hansen, etc., is listening to those who "tell >you what you want to hear". Are you insinuating that those >researchers trying to make sense of whistleblowers and witnesses >describing secret underground bases filled with >extraterrestrials who perform experiments on humans are >fabricating their own horror story for entertainment? Perhaps >those like myself who take such whistleblowers seriously need to >take a course in UFOlogy 101 where we demand hard evidence and >documentation of those claiming the existence of such >underground bases. Regardless of ample testimonial evidence that >'hard evidence' and documentation are regularly withdrawn and >tampered with by national security agencies, we just invoke the >demand "where's the hard evidence", and we graduate as >legitimate UFO researchers. >>I find it interesting that people such as Col. Phil Corso and >>Robert Dean were welcomed with open arms because they said what >>we wanted to hear, although I know of no evidence uncovered as >>yet to back up their most sensational claims. I am not calling >>them liars or disinfo agents, I am merely making a point of >>perspective here. The best procedure I think is to listen to >>their stories, and check up on the information, as Robert and >>Ryan Wood - among others - are currently doing. >Why do you assume whistleblowers tell us what we want to hear? >Their experiences come from long military services where they >had the opportunity to experience what they claim to have >witnessed. Revealing information about classified projects is no >small matter and individuals doing so have great courage in >risking the penalties. I think we can do more than denigrate >them by claiming they are telling us what we want to hear. The point is that these are claims. I am not denigrating the messengers, I am referring to the people who accept what they say as gospel truth without anything else to back it up. I believe that many UFO researchers have a very bad record in regard to tunnel vision. Witness testimony is not as clear-cut when they reveal something as fantastic as agreements between aliens and the U.S. government. Has anything happened to these retired individuals? Have any of them been threatened or jailed? There may be a mixture of alturism and disinfo here. Regarding withdrawn testimonies and disappearing evidence, "thatís just what they want you to think"-type analysis has never won many converts, and will never get you an audience with anyone who can truly help your cause, unless you can prove that the evidence is available elsewhere. Otherwise, youíre S.O.L. >>How are whistleblowers more believable than intelligence agents? >>How do we know that these people are not intelligence agents >>themselves, or have been set up? If disinformation works well, >>the target will not only believe what they have been told or >>shown, but will keep their nose on the line and continue on >>their own, even without any subsequent confirming evidence. This >>is a well-demonstrated trait. If we believe whistleblower >>testimony out of hand, and reject intelligence leaks, we are not >>looking at the full picture. >These are good points. I have no easy answer. We need to be >alert to all these possibilities and be as discerning as >possible. In the absence of hard evidence and documentation that >will give us quick answers, we need to develop skills in >analysing a witnesses integrity, veracity, etc. Even then, it >may not be enough to have 100 percent confidence. That's why the >social sciences are not as precise as the physical sciences. >What happens in people's heads is much more difficult to work >out than the behavior of colliding billiard balls and other >empirical phenomenon. Exactly. I agree with you that we need to check things out. I could not possibly have checked out the "pro-Bennewitz" rumors as much as you have and made my deadline. You seem to have the interest to pursue the rumors, and I and others might be surprised by what you may find. Time and gumshoe work are the best tools to finding the truth. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination to check up on things that I don't believe will bear fruit. If you do, more power to you. I also know of no fool-proof method for determining the veracity of a claim just by talking to one person. If you are talking about integrity, Bill Cooper and John Lear are not very good examples. They may have believed what they said, but I believe that both changed their stories and neither has been vindicated. >I certainly find no flaw in your willingness to seek out a broad >representation of witnesses and researchers to support your >argument. You research was very thorough in describing the >position of those that thought that Bennewitz was disinformed >and was disseminating tainted material. In that sense, you earn >the very highest marks and I'm sure that many veteran >researchers in the UFO community will find your analysis >compelling and may resent my chastising you for not seriously >considering whistleblower testimonies. However, I wonder who >else you would have interviewed if you took some of the >whistleblowers claims of Schneider, Burisch, etc., seriously. If I took them seriously, as you do, I would have had to locate and interview them. I did not have that luxury. One other thing I would like to point out is that two or three years ago, when I was researching the book, these stories were only available in samizdat form, and therefore very difficult to locate. I believe that it is only in the last couple of years that they have become more widely distributed on the internet - perhaps due in part to your efforts. Maybe someone can now refute my analysis in a more systematic manner. I'd be interested to see it, but if there is nothing left at Dulce to pick up, look at, photograph or detect through other means (like ground-penetrating radar or ultrasonic cave mapping) you wonít get many people on your side. >>How do you know what was "genuine" in Bennewitz' reports? You >>claim that I assume his whole theory of underground base and >>captured humans (I never mentioned any captured people) was >>solely a product of disinformation. This is not the case. What I >>did say is that the Air Force and NSA capitalized on existing >>aspects of his theory for their own ends. >Yes, that is an important qualification. Thanks for making your >position clearer. >>Claims of whistleblowers are just like the claims of government >>agents-we have to check the facts if they are available. Lazar, >>Schneider, Wolf and Burisch had incredible stories to tell about >>Dulce, but like Corso, Dean, and even Doty there is little or no >>supporting evidence. (I double checked Doty's and Moore's >>statements with those of others-within the government and the >>UFO field, as well as published accounts. If they matched, I >>included them. If not, I specifically stated so.) If Schneider >>was murdered, was it because he was talking too much about alien >>bases, or was there another reason? We are left with rumors and >>claims, but no reliable information to back them up. Plausible >>is not factual. The picture they paint is quite incredible and >>frightening, but I am not dismissing their claims out of hand. >I'm glad to hear that. I think Schneider's case is especially >interesting. It has all the characteristics of someone being >eliminated for talking too much about his classified work. I do >believe that he was 'eliminated' as a direct result of his >testimony about underground bases and the various agreements >reached with ETs by covert agencies. Disclosure Project >whistleblowers such as Don Phillips and Daniel Salter talk about >the 'death squads' used to eliminate those who break security. >These are serious claims. As you say, without documentation and >hard evidence, what do we do? We need to tread warily, and >neither jump too quickly to conclusions either for or against >the testimony. I don't think there are easy answers here and we >need to be discerning, and do our best in analysing all the >evidence. Was Schneider told about the agreements, or did he see evidence of it? His claims of working at the Dulce base are very difficult if not impossible to substantiate. In regard to death squads - "serious" claims are not necessarily true, and Phillips and Salter may have only heard about them. I have not learned of any problems with UFO researchers, at least since the 1960s (MacDonald, Jessup) and with the exception of Bill Cooper (whose belligerence more than his claims likely led to his death) I believe that nothing along these lines has happened since then. >>You assume that the Air Force (as you say) wanted to find out >>what the aliens were doing by using Bennewitz' expertise. If >>that was the case, all they had to do was either copy his setup >>or confiscate his equipment. This would not have been difficult, >>since he was convinced that he was in their confidence. I >>followed the more likely scenario. >However what if the Air Force (or more correctly the NSA as you >point out) was constrained by certain agreements in place >between extraterrestrials and government agencies? One of those >agreements may have limited the degree to which the Air force >could electronically monitor the base activities of the >extraterrestrials. Where is this agreement? Who has seen a copy? Why wouldn't the AFOSI have just gone ahead and used the radio setup anyway, since they apparently don't seem to care how they get their information? Wouldnít the aliens know that Bennewitz was telling the military what he was hearing? Couldnít the aliens have stopped this themselves? There are so many loose ends here I wouldn't know where to begin. >In the Charles Hall testimony we have a >description of how the Air Force and an extraterrestrial race >reached agreements that were followed to the letter at Nellis >AFB. Perhaps something also happened at Archeluta/Dulce whereby >a private civilian such as Bennewitz could supply intelligence >that the agencies couldn't do themselves under the terms of an >agreement. If Bennewitz and others are correct that >extraterrestrials have reached agreements with covert government >entitities, then it would be plausible that the terms of an >agreement would be that there would not be electronic >surveillance of the base. This would be similar to how a >government opens an embassy in a foregin country and the >agreement proscribes electronic surveillance of the embassy by >the host nation. Sure, but so far I haven't seen anything to substantiate this besides your theory. This sort of theorizing puts one on a very difficult path with little guarantee of success. >>Bennewitz was flown over the Archuleta Mesa on at least two >>occasions to look at the supposed indications of an underground >>base there. The Air Force had actually placed props on the >>ground to draw his attention to this area and away from Kirtland >>Air Force Base. Why would they do this if there really was a >>base under the mesa? Wouldn't they simply have told Bennewitz >>that there was nothing of interest there? They knew that he was >>contacting elected officials and news media about his concerns. >>It would seem self-defeating let this secret out. >Bennewitz was an electronics specialist that could trace the >source of electronic transmissions. He traced these to the >Archelutta Mesa and also had numerous sightings of UFOs in the >Dulce area. I'm not sure of the prop story to divert Bennewitz's >attention from Kirtland to the Archuleta Mesa/Dulce area. It >sounds like a classic disinformation strategy to explain away >how Bennewitz was interested in underground activities at Dulce. >So I don't believe the Air Force placed props there as you were >told presumably by Doty? It sounds like the kind of tale he >would have weaved during his service. I would say you were too >quick to accept this as the basis of Bennewitz's interest in the >location of Dulce. ...and Gabe Valdez, who told me that Bennewitz had shared these incidents with him. I donít think Gabe was ever employed by the AFOSI. You assume for some reason that I believed everything that was told to me by intelligence agents. >>On the Art Bell program about a month ago, Richard Doty stated >>that he knew the Roswell incident was a crashed alien craft. If >>it were not for the fact that Doty is persona non grata in the >>UFO community, this would have been greeted as a revelation. Was >>this a another ploy by Doty to keep us listening to other lies >>he chooses to tell? He has been out of the Air Force for over 10 >>years. What would be the purpose of such shenanigans? I know >>many Ufologists will say that he still dances to his piper's >>tune, and 'you never really retire from intelligence work', but >>this stretches my own credulity. Besides, as I mentioned >>already, he was not the sole source for the narrative of the >>book. >I think this is a fair point. I don't know how best to deal with >someone like Doty who has clearly played a role in disseminating >disinformation. I know that Clifford Stone played a role in >disseminating disinformation to a target concering an crash- >retreival incident - a female UFO researcher. Stone later >confessed to this and regretted it. Stone however claims he >would have gone to the grave maintaining silence and his loyalty >oath were it not for the death of his son. It seems that was the >catalyst that turned him around. I don't know much about Doty >and will read his book with Collins and listen to some of his >interviews to understand his motivations and integrity in coming >forward. I remain suspicious but will be open to the possibility >that he is genuinely contributing to the UFO community rather >than dancing to his old master's tune. I believe that Doty is still under some pressure to keep some secrets, but I think it is in a way that allows him to open up about things that concern him - just like yours and Greer's whistleblowers. The difference is that I could check things he said and disregard things that were not correlated (or at least not include them in the book.) >>To me, the evidence pointed at a disinfo campaign and little >>else. If there is any reliable evidence for a joint human- >>alien base in Dulce besides uncheckable testimony, I would >>like to see it. >This is precisely the problem. How can one see "reliable >evidence" of a highly classified project. ...or an underground base, or agreements with aliens. The point I tried to make is that classified projects deal with earthly, sometimes mundane issues. Contact with a non-human race is another thing - much more extraordinary, and therefore much harder to prove. We are convincing no one but ourselves (and not all of us either) with these rumors. And Iíll give you one example of evidence of a highly classified project that was covered up with lies and disinformation (some of which was directed at Bennewitz) for 15 years: The F-117. >Possessing such evidence is a crime and those >even discussing the existence of such a project are violating national >security. You and other UFO researchers speak casually about the need for >'verifiable evidence, Verifiable evidence is not "casual." It is the thing needed to convince the public, elected officials, and others about the reality of what is proposed. This is required to start a serious, widespread public discussion, or a Congressional inquiry. >I have reached the conclusion from the testimonies of a number >of whistleblowers that the "alien-military alliance" exists. >That is not a 'core belief but a result of reading numerous >whistleblower testimonies since I became interested in the >extraterrestrial hypothesis. My entry into the the UFO field was >listening to Greer's Disclosure Project Press Conference in >2001. I was never interested in UFO sightings before that, but >became interested in whistleblower testimonies about secret >agreements, cover up of UFO sightings, secret committee system >that oversees deep black projects that allegedly deal with EBEs, >ETVs, etc. In the discipline of Political Science whistleblower >testimonies are regarded very highly and studied closely to >unravel what's happening in different government agencies. We >even have Federal whistleblower protection laws in place in the >US and many countries in recognition of the service >whistleblower's play in ensuring tranparent and honest >governance. In contrast, I found the UFO community regularly >dismisses whistleblower testimonies - there is a rather large >gray box in UFO research gathering dust with many precious >jewels that have been forgotten. The treatment given to >whistleblowers is a major omission by UFO researchers and >hopefully explains why I'm on this forum and trying to give >whistleblower testimonies the kind of recognition they deserve. Testimonies are fine, especially when the whistleblower in question is blowing the whistle on something with which the public is familiar, and doesnít touch on such a taboo topic as UFOs. Unfortunately, it is far more difficult for elected officials to get behind former military personnel who come forward with stories of a "cosmic coverup ." You and I and just about all those who read this know that there are some (or many) dirty secret(s) involving the subject. When you and others can back their stories with other evidence, or convince others besides yourselves that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant further investigation, then things can move forward. I hope you can do this. It would be a revelation. I'm sorry that I do not share your belief that this will happen any time soon. My only "core belief" from my 15 years of looking at this subject that there is a non-human presence on this planet (notice I do not qualify this with "extraterrestrial") and that there are some people who know more about the nature of this presence than the general public. Beyond this, I have found no firm evidence to make any further claims. This probably wonít win me a lot of speaking dates or appearances on TV, but I donít really care. The line you are willing to step over goes much further. Good luck. >>You suggest that I stained Bennewitz' memory by my treatment of >>him in Project Beta. This is the opposite of my feelings and why >>I took great pains to emphasize this in the book. That's why I >>dedicated it to him. What I wanted to show was that even this >>brilliant man could be fooled by his own tunnel vision and his >>ears tuned only to what he had already decided was true, instead >>of weighing the evidence on a case-by-case basis. >I'm sorry but what you say here is what I principally objected >to in your work. You refer to his "own tunnel vision" and his >"ears tuned only to what he had already decided was true". Why >is that not staining his memory? Just because I think someone was deluded in one area of his thinking doesnít mean that I am doing a hatchet job on him. From your perspective, Paul Bennewitz was onto something. From just about everyone elseís point of view, he was chasing illusions. In most cases of this type, the situation would have been harmless and we would never have heard of him or his theories. I tried to explain that these illusions were encouraged by people who did not care a whit about his state of mind. Had the AFOSI and NSA not become involved, he may have eventually dropped the subject, or altered his stand. I feel as if youíre accusing me of blaming the victim for the crime. Self-delusion is not uncommon, even in the scientific community, and can be used to draw people away from the truth, be it in scientific research, covert operations or an alien presence. If his suspicions were true, the AFOSI and NSA et al did a good job of fooling him, and apparently me now. Believing in only that which supports your thesis and ignoring anything else that seriously denigrates it is a dangerous road to travel. This is also something I tried to get across to the reader in "Project Beta." >It seems that you have accepted >all that Doty and Moore have revealed, with minor support of a >number of others you interviewed, to paint what appears to be a >compelling picture of Bennewitz as a brilliant yet deluded man. >If you seriously considered the testimony of some of the >whistleblowers I mentioned, you may have reached a different >conclusion. I think that is what we owe Bennewitz who paid a >high price for honestly reporting his findings to a very >sceptical and hard nosed UFO community. I can't consider them seriously because I can't find anything to back up their claims. At least Moore, Doty, and Miller told me things that I could check with people and accounts from the "outside." Where is the "minor support" for the whistleblowers besides other whistleblowers? >I can't fault you for adopting a methodology that many in the >UFO community accept as rigorous scientific research method. ...as well as journalists, courts, and the public at large. Scientific method is based on testable repeatability. This is not this is not the same as a journalistic treatment of a story, and "Project Beta" is not a science paper. UFO sightings are not controllable and repeatable. Ufology lies, as you rightly put it, somewhat in the realm of sociology. It is also served well by a study of statistics. However, I fail to see how sociological methods are applicable to whistleblower testimony, although correlating similar accounts from separate sources is a start. This is more like the investigation of a crime, or a journalistic story. The next obvious step is to see if this matching testimony is based in anything that can be investigated - like uncovering an extensive tunnel network under the Archuleta mesa. Why hasnít anyone done this? One of the main points in "Project Beta" was that the UFO community was hopelessly contaminated by disinformation in the late 1980s and early Ď90s by a set of stories that were so convoluted and outlandish that they were guaranteed to be marginalized. In response to this torrent of disinfo, researchers who were looking for the most sensationalized stories flocked to them. Unfortunately, the nature of the information and the personalities that were spreading it turned off all but the most paranoid among us. >The field has been dominated by the methodology first created by >pioneers such as Donald Keyhoe, Allen Hynek, Jim MacDonald, >Richard Hall, Stanton Friedman, etc. My own exopolitical model >is strongly resisted since it doesn't place much emphasis on the >need for documentation and verifiable evidence. As you say, your >book will be helpful for disinterested parties who seek >verifiable evidence. However, it's in the unverifiable evidence >that the truth will be found. That is something many >increasingly are realizing and why whistleblowers need to have >their testimonies seriously considered. And here is the crux of the problem. You're stating the one, overriding reason why no one who can truly help you will ever come forward. What you're proposing is a paradigm shift where we believe people based on nothing but their word and anything in their accounts which support a rigid hypothesis of alien takeover. This is the one of the definitions of dysfunctional relationships, and one of the reasons why disinformation works so well. This methodology also frees one from having to answer any normally obvious questions or doing the sort of work that requires many long hours of research in libraries and archives, or interviewing witnesses who may have divergent points of view. I think that this is exactly what happened to Paul Bennewitz. Our consensus reality has many problems, and belief in someone based solely on their word has caused many of them. >While you may feel my comments are perhaps an unwelcome >spotlight on your methodological approach to the Bennewitz saga, >I believe you have done him and others a service in resurrecting >his case and bringing it to the attention of many in the UFO >community. In that sense, I think your book succeeds admirably >in bringing into the focus the challenges that confront us in >dealing with the disinformation leveled against UFO researchers. I do thank you for being a gentleman. Considering some of the namecalling and baiting that occurs in the UFO community, that itself is an accomplishment. _________________ In the midst of the cold war, the U.S. Air Force and the NSA drove a man mad and created an alien invasion! Read "PROJECT BETA: The Story of Paul Bennewitz, National Security, and the Creation of a Modern UFO Myth" from Paraview/ Pocket Books. available at your local bookstore or from Amazon.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp