From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 05:30:43 -1000
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:20:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Philip Corso & NSC - Salla


>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:47:47 -0300
>Subject: Re: Philip Corso & NSC

>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 07:18:45 -1000
>>Subject: Re: Philip Corso & NSC

<snip>

>Unlike the exopoliticians, those of us who have been talking
>about a government coverup are very careful to support our
>conclusions with evidence (That word that you seem to have
>forgotten about Michael)

Stan, I agree that evidence is the basis for making any claims
that appeal to a scientist whether in the physical or social
sciences. That's what distinguishes disciplines like physics,
sociology, etc., from the humanities. However, what process in
UFOlogy has been created to assess different categories of
evidence? Was the process something broad based that included
the discliplinary perspectives of a number of experts, or an ad
hoc process that appealed to the biases of the dominant UFO
researchers at any one time? For example, contactee reports from
those like Howard Menger and George Adamski were often supported
by hard evidence in the form of photos, films, and independent
witnesses. Yet some sceptics say these sources of evidence were
discredited or fabricated. On the other hand some argue that the
evidence is as equally compelling today as it was then. In the
1970s we had Billy Meier offer evidence that continues to be
debated. Currently, James Gilliland offers much evidence of UFO
sightings that is ignored by Peter Davenport and most members on
this list. Again, what interdisciplinary process has been
created to assess these different sources of evidence, as
opposed to leading UFO researchers imposing their own dismissive
biases.

This takes me to the evidence used by Donald Keyhoe. The
evidence accumulated by Keyhoe comprised a mix of
whistleblower/leaker statements, radar sightings, pilot
statements etc. Some of the evidence Keyhoe used for his claims
were unsubstantiated whistleblower/leaker statements. For
example, in the Flying Saucer Conspiracy, Keyhoe discussed
evidence of very large UFOs circulating the Earth in 1953 gained
from reliable inside sources. He describes all this as very
classified. Similary in his Aliens from Space he claims that
Project Ozma successfully established radio communications with
Epsilon Eridani in the early 1960s and that this was covered up
as a mistake based on intercepting signals from a classified
military satellite. What was Keyhoe's evidence for making such
claims? Could it be brought forward to satisfy a sceptic?
Basically, Keyhoe was relaying information he had been told by
his inside contacts because it was becoming harder to provide
evidence due to JANAP 146 passed in 1953. Keyhoe was smart
enough to figure out that evidence was increasingly being
withheld and that whistleblower/leaker testimony could be used
to gain an idea of what was happening. At the same time, he was
compiling all the evidence gained through more witness
sightings, radar trackings, etc., to build a case for the most
reliable evidence. Whistleblower/leaker testimony is 'soft
evidence' that can be used in exopolitical analysis. This is
something Keyhoe was increasingly doing because he knew that
getting evidence was becoming more difficult by the day due to
the government conspiracy. So exopolitics is not new at all and
something that began with Keyhoe's analysis of the government
cover up. It is not a fringe approach that threatens to dilute
"serious UFO research" but an important approach that was
practiced by Keyhoe in establishing the parameters of serious
UFO research.

>No evidence has been provided to back up the claims of 2 degrees
>by Bob Lazar and 6 by Michael Wolf Kruvant and of course their
>other whistleblower claims. Therefore by exopolitical reasoning
>they must have what they claimed because the government has
>covered it all up. Totally inconsistent with this would seem to
>be your false claim that I have no record of publication in
>scientific journals. Surely you should have 'reasoned" that I
>must since you couldn't find any evidence. I will list some
>below.

There is debate over what qualifies as acceptable evidence for
the above whistleblowers. Lazar's work at Los Alamos, providing
a W-2 slip of earnings, independent witnesses sightings of a UFO
outside area 51, etc., all constitute evidence for his claims.
People disagree over how compelling this evidence is. You for
example believe that Lazar is bunk, while George Knapp believes
Lazar is credible. It's similar with Wolf and some of his
leading supporters such as Paola Harris, Michael Hesseman,
Richard Boylan who cite various forms of evidence supporting
Lazar. The key methodological question is not whether there is
evidence, but what qualifies as evidence, and what role does the
government play in distorting or removing the evidence.

<snip>

>>Since Keyhoe's demise the great tragedy for UFO research was
>>that researchers from the 'physical sciences such as Dr Allen
>>Hynek, Dr James MacDonald and Stanton Friedman became the
>>'exclusive' standard bearers of UFOlogy with their rigorous
>>'scientific' pursuit of the UFO phenomenon. Hynek, MacDonald and
>>Friedman and other astronomers, physicists, meteorologists,
>>etc., eschewed 'conspiracy theories' of a national security
>>cover up and believed that more concerted scientific research
>>would yield the truth. Keyhoe's exopolitical perspective quickly
>>moved from the center stage of UFO research and his extensive
>>citation and use of whistleblower testimonies was forgotten.
>>Now, the exopolitical perspective is considered part of the
>>fringe of serious UFO research.

>Michael, I start just about all my lectures with 4 major
>conclusions. The first is that the evidence is overwhelming that
>eartrh is being visited by alien spacecraft i.e. _some_ UFOs are
>alien spacecraft. 2.The subject of "flying saucers represents a
>kind of Cosmic Watergate meaning some few people in most
>goovernment have known since at least July 1947 that _some_ UFOs
>are alien spacecraft. I show the lies of Sec. of the Air Force
>Donald Quarles. I note General Bolender,s statements about
>sightings which could effect national security are _not_ part of
>the Blue Book System. I quote Judge Gesell. I show the blacked
>out and whited out NSA and CIA UFO documents.Nobody has been
>more vocal than I have about the facts about the coverup.

>>UFO studies as it is presently concentrated is a shadow of what
>>it once was under Keyhoe's leadership and suffers from an acute
>>shortage of resources and organization. I have noted the demise
>>of organizations such as NICAP, CUFOS and FUFOR, and the current
>>difficulties of MUFON and can only conclude that this is brought
>>about by UFO researchers being out of touch with the many
>>millions or 'mainstream public' who accept the ETH and/or that a
>>national security cover up at the highest level is underway. The
>>2002 Roper conclusively demonstrates that as much as 70% of
>>Americans believe the government is covering up the truth about
>>the ETH.

>I will take some credit for that Michael, with my multitude of
>media appearances and in my books Crash At Corona and TOP
>SECRET/MAJIC, and my paper, The Cosmic Watergate. All are
>available. Sorry you missed them.

The Roper poll refers to a widespread societal phenomenon based
on a survey of a randomly chosen group of individuals. Saying
the result is due to any one researcher is a stretch and a touch
of hubris. It is much more likely due to a very real process of
UFO sightings and human extraterrestrial interactions that has
accumulated over the years. I doubt many of the respondents have
read any of your works. Your books remain on my 'to read' list.
I'll get to them eventually.

>>Paul Kimball cites researchers such as Brad Sparks, Kevin
>>Randall, Stanton Friedman, Josh Goldstein, Richard Hall and
>>himself as exemplary models for systematically defining the
>>parameters of the "Serious Study of the UFO phenomenon" in terms
>>of a 'scientific method' for studying UFO sightings, the
>>abduction phenomenon, FOIA documents, etc. It's worth pointing
>>out that aside from Stanton Friedman, none of these gentlemen
>>are scientists that enable them to authoritatively establish the
>>scientific method as championed as the exemplary model for UFO
>>research. In Stanton's case while he worked as nuclear
>>physicist, he doesn't have a PhD nor does he have a record of
>>peer reviewed publications in scientific journals.

>One fact right: I don't have a PhD... and have never claimed I
>have and have, whenever possible, correctd people like Larry
>King, when thay have said I do.

>Try these on for size. All you had to do was ask.:

>Co author Chapter "Experimental Shielding" in textbook "Reactor
>Shielding for Nuclear Engineers" ed. by Norman Schaeffer TID
>25951 (Book is 788 p.)

>"Indirect Measurement of Nuclear Heating in Poson Control Vanes"
>Transactions of American Nuclear Societ: 12:1 p. 25

>"Experimental Evaluation of Boron Carbide Modified Beryllium
>Oxide Shield Matrices" TANS 10:1 p. 393

>"Use of the Transport Code DTK, for Shielding Design and
>Analysis TANS 7:2 p. 354

>"Measurments of Secondary Gamma Rays from Tungsten, Stainless
>Steel, and Borated Steel". TANS 4:2 p. 266

>"Preliminary Shield Design for Nuclear Electric Space Power
>Plants" withDr. David Cocharan, invited paper AIEE Meetings
>Denver 62-1236 40p.

>"Realistic Evaluation of Shadow Shields for Space Nuclear
>Systems" International Symposium on Aerospace Nuclear
>Proopulsion" published in IRE Trans. on Nuclear Science
>NS91,378-84

>There were numerous classified technical documents. Two worth
>noting because they were eventually declassified are these
>"External Reports (which needed several levels of approval for
>external distribution) "Radiation Shielding Tests Performed in
>GE Outside Test Tank in the period March-June 1958" APEX 581,
>109p.

>"An Analysis of Late 1957 and Early 1958 Lid-Tank Experiments
>Pertaining to XMA-1 Shield Design" (XMA 1 was a nuclear Aircraft
>Design) APEX 524 55p.

Thank you for clarifying this and I apologize for not
acknowledging your peer reviewed publications. May I suggest you
add these professional publications or a CV to your online
biography so these are not overlooked in future by other
researchers: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfbio.html

<snip>

>>In each case the above are very competent UFO researchers who
>>have strong biases towards a scientific method championed by
>>Hynek, MacDonald and Friedman. I respect Richard Hall's long
>>experience and fidelity to the 'scientific study of the UFO
>>phenomenon. However, in adopting Hynek's and MacDonald's
>>methodology, he has eschewed the exopolitical approach taken by
>>his mentor Major Keyhoe who did very seriously consider the
>>testimony of whistleblowers or those leaking classified
>>information to him from the national security system. Perhaps
>>Richard Hall would like to explain to the list how Maj Keyhoe
>>chose the sources of his information so we may get an idea of
>>how whistleblower testimonies can be authoritatively cited?

>I would consider Major Jesse Marcel a whistleblower in the sense
>that he revealed previously unknown classified information. But
>I can prove he was the intelligence Officer for the 509th... as
>opposed to claims made about Corso supposedly inserting alien
>technology into American industry... more than 13 years AFTER the
>USAF FTD had pieces of alien wreckage. He also claimed credit
>(totally unsubstantiated) for the back engineering of work done
>2 years before his involvement with Army FTD by Nobelist Jack
>Kilby om microcircuits.

There is evidence supporting Corso's claims of having headed the
Foreign Technology Desk at Army Research and Development. I
think it clear that his position provided him the opportunity to
participate in such a classified Army project as inserting alien
technology into private industry. As to his success and role in
such a program, that's open to debate. There is every reason to
believe Corso that such a classified project existed since he
put his reputation as a highly decorated military officer on the
line in coming forward to reveal his role before his death.
Researchers such as Brad Sparks and it appears yourself impugn
Corso's integrity as a whistleblower by pointing to 'minor'
inconsistencies in his testimony that can be explained in many
ways other rather than the tendentious claim that Corso was
lying.

>>As far as Brad Sparks is concerned, he has a sharp mind and
>>access to much historical information that he creatively spins
>>to support his 'revisionist theories' but his systematic
>>debunking of whistleblower testimonies and eschewal of the ETH
>>doesn't make him in my mind a good model for what UFO research
>>is about. As for his background, I have no information on that
>>other than he co-founded CAUS. Perhaps he might enlighten me and
>>others about what it is in his background that might entitle him
>>to be recognized as laying down the scientific parameters of UFO
>>research.

>Who are you to judge? You are clearly not interested in being
>enlightened about anybody such as myself, Corso, Lazar, etc.

I think it fair to ask about the background of those attacking
the integrity of whistleblowers who have staked their
reputations in coming forward. Brad Sparks has publicly taken
the position that "Corso is a liar" and that Clifford Stone was
"ripping off" the FOIA work of others such as Robert Todd and is
also "a liar". If a researcher attackes the integrity of
whistleblowers, I think it only fair to ask more questions about
the background of the researcher in question. In my own case, my
CV is publically available and there are no secrets about my
professional background: http://www.exopolitics.org/Vitae.htm. I
simply asked the question about Brad Sparks background and
whether there is any information he can share about it to the
rest of the forum other than him being a co-founder of CAUS.

>>Paul Kimball has a law degree and is an independent filmmaker.
>>Josh Goldstein is a detective. I don't say this in any way to
>>demean their investigative abilities or research competence,
>>it's just that none are scientists with competence in developing
>>appropriate methodologies for investigating hypotheses such as
>>the ETH. In general, the above researchers cited as the models
>>for UFOlogy eschew systematic analysis of the political cover up
>>of the ETH on the basis of biases that EXCLUSIVELY favor
>>scientific study of 'hard evidence' in the form of UFO
>>sightings, and FOIA documents.

>Read my paper "UFOs: Earth's Cosmic Watergate" I did have a Q
>clearance for 14 years and wrote classified documents, and have
>been to 20archives. And your qualifications for evaluating the
>legitimacy of the whistle blower claims?

I'm qualified as a political scientist who has gone through a
rigorous PhD program to develop appropriate methodological
criteria for investigating a variety of hypotheses in political
science. In the 3-4 year program I completed at the University
of Queensland, I and other PhD candidates had to regularly
present papers before our peers, advisors and faculty where our
methodologies were scrutinized and our substantive reasoning was
tested on a broad range of topics in political
science/government studies. I successfully completed the program
as atested by my PhD was now is available online at:
http://www.exopolitics.org/Salla-PhD.pdf . Similarly, you can
check my CV to see that I have gone on to achieve a number of
professional successes in Political Science/Government studies.
I am more professionally qualified than you or others on Paul
Kimball's 'A-Team for serious UFO research' to investigate the
whistleblower testimonies of those claiming a "Cosmic Watergate"
over the UFO phenomenon and the ETH.

>>The cover up of evidence, the testimony of
>>whistleblowers/'leakers', the manipulation of documents,
>>intimidation of witnesses supporting the ETH is not at the
>>fringe of UFO studies. It was at the center stage of UFO studies
>>at its formation and under Maj Keyhoe who blended together an
>>exopolitical perspective together with the more rigorous
>>scientific analysis of UFO data.

<snip>.
>
>>Finally, either of the two definitions of exopolitics cited
>>above herald an emerging trend of researchers, experiencers,
>>whistleblowers who do systematically explore the political
>>processes associated with the cover up of the ETH. The various
>>methodologies to be used for exopolitics will naturally be
>>strongly contested, but this should be done in a way that
>>recognizes the complexities in exopolitical research, and
>>without excluding data that fits outside the artificially
>>constructed paradigm of "Serious Study of the UFO phenomenon".

>Sorry, Michael, but you just aren't with it. Try doing your
>homework first. It is 2005. It has been more than 30 years since
>Jim MacDonald died and almost 20 since Hynek died.

Hynek and MacDonald are still with us in terms of the legacy
they established for UFO research. Obviously, you are with us as
well in terms of the criteria you establish for serious UFO
research which is similar in many respects to Hynek and
MacDonald.

>Stan Friedman

>Still kicking. Check out my just published 2nd Edition of TOP
>SECRET/MAJIC only $17. including S and H. from me at POB 958,
>Houlton, ME 04730-0958.

>Cosmic Watergate indeed.

Stan, I applaud you on your work in establishing the USAF lies
over the Roswell case, and the accuracy of several of the
Majestic Documents such as the EBD. You also have supported the
work of researchers such as Frank Feschino and Clifford Stone.
These are all to your credit and are part of the legacy you have
established.

On the other hand you have publically opposed the credibility of
whistleblowers such as Corso, Lazar and whistleblowers who have
come forward as part of Steven Greer's Disclosure Project on the
basis that documentary evidence is required to support their
claims before they can be taken seriously. Furthermore, you take
the standard position for veteran UFO researchers that
'contactee cases'  are not worth serious UFO study.

You are clearly part of a cadre of UFO researchers marking out
and enforcing the methodological boundaries of 'serious UFO
research' in terms of the need for documents and other forms of
'hard evidence'. Exopolitics does accept 'soft evidence' in the
form of whistleblower testimonies, and this is not a new
development since Keyhoe did something very similar with his own
approach to the cover up of the ETH. Often whistleblower/leaker
testimony doesn't have much hard evidence supporting it so
significant controversy arises over whistleblower credibility
and integrity is enough for it to be considered in "serious UFO
study".

Since exopolitics is depicted by Paul Kimball and others as a
"fringe UFO study" that needs to be kept at arms length from
serious UFO study, then clearly there will be friction as I and
others make the case that the methodologically basis of serious
UFO research is badly skewed by the biases of leading UFO
researchers.

The Cosmic Watergate requires developing an appropriate
methodological approach and I fully agree with the criteria
established by Greer in his Disclosure Project which is very
similar to the approach taken by Donald Keyhoe. Since you and
others on Kimball's A-Team have publically stated your
opposition to Greer and his methodology, then we are clearly on
opposing camps as to what constitutes 'serious UFO research'.


In peace

Michael Salla