From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:21:49 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:32:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Response To Kevin Randle's Exopolitics


>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:26:21 -1000
>Subject: Re: Response To Kevin Randle's Exopolitics Critique

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:51:34 EST
>>Subject: Re: Response To Kevin Randle's Exopolitics Critique

>>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:09:04 -1000
>>>Subject: Re: Response To Kevin Randle's Exopolitics Critique

>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:25:01 EST
>>>>Subject: Re: Response To Kevin Randle's Exopolitics Critique

<snip>

>>But with
>>Dean, no one else who was in a position to know has come out to
>>say that yes, The Assessment did exist. To this point they have
>>universally denied that it did. Someone, somewhere, other than
>>Dean, should have provided a hint about it. No one has.

>>And, really, I'm not required to offer clear intent for the
>>fabrication of such a story. You, on the other hand, are
>>required to offer some proof, other than the "whistleblower"
>>sounds sincere. I'm confused as to why you will accept these
>>implausible stories without any corroboration and accept the
>>idea that their records have been altered or erased, when there
>>is much better evidence that these people simply are not telling
>>the truth. Rather than deal with this you simply suggest they
>>are red herrings and forget about it.

>There is much more than merely saying whistleblowers such as
>Dean sound sincere. It has been proved he was where he claimed
>to be. A senior NCO stationed in SHOC who performed a particular
>set of tasks that gave him access to highly classified
>documents. He had Top Secret clearance due to his earlier six
>year service as a commissioend officer, so when stationed at
>SHOC in 1963 he was able to get the required Cosmic clearance to
>work in SHOC. These are facts that have been investigated and
>documents exists to support many aspects of Dean's story. As for
>Dean's story being inplausible. You are incorrect. It's very
>plausible just unproved at the moment.

Please elaborate on this "earlier six year service as a
commissioned officer."

However, there are aspects of Dean's story that are not
confirmed and that are in direct conflict with what he says. For
example, he said that he was in the "Intelligence Section" but
the documents, supplied by him, suggest his assignment was to
the Language Group - and a document he supplied to Good relating
to Dean's security clearance is "patently bogus." In other
words, here is a document supplied by Dean to prove he was
involved with the intelligence section that has been
manufactured.

<snip>

>>>The only thing red in the argument you are making are the red
>>>herrings that you use in your attempt to discredit Corso. These
>>>alleged embellishments and insertions of himself into UFO
>>>stories are distractions from Corso's central claims. He was the
>>>head of the Foreign Technology Desk at Army Research and
>>>Development and participated in a covert program authorized by
>>>Lt General Arther Trudea to seed civilian industries with
>>>extraterrestrial technologies. Those are the central claims made
>>>by Corso and are supported by Corso's military records
>>>documenting his position where he could have played such a role.

>>Excuse me, but these are not alleged embellishments. Corso said
>>that he was a colonel and he was not. He said he commanded the
>>Whites Sands Missile Range when he did not. He said that he was
>>a member of MJ-12 when he was not. He made many such claims that
>>were untrue. Period.

>Excuse me but I have yet to find Corso making any of these
>claims concerning being a full Colonel, being a member of MJ-12.
>I have done quite a bit of reseach on Corso and listened to a
>number of interviews and read some of his personal material. I
>have not found any of these claims you say. Can you give clear
>references and evidence that he made such claims. I have yet to
>find it. If not, then I can only conclude you are promoting red
>herrings. As for being in command of White Sands Missile Range,
>he received a Commendation for meritorious service as battalian
>commander for the 3rd Missile Battalion, 71st Artillery from
>1957-59. That relates to the period where he claims to have
>served at White Sands. Is your objection that he was a battalion
>commander rather than commander of the entire White Sands
>Missile Range? Sounds to me like another red herring you are
>promoting.

On the cover of his book, it says Colonel and not Lieutenant
Colonel. When questioned about this, Corso said that he was
promoted to Colonel in the reserve on retirement. There is no
documentation to support this claim. Rather than just say the
publisher made a mistake because publishers don't always
understand things military, Corso choose to spin the tale,
claiming to be an 06 (Colonel) when he was, in fact an 05
(Lieutenant Colonel). To make it worse, in his proposal, and in
correspondence he said that he was a Colonel rather than a
Lieutenant Colonel.

In the proposal he circulated about his book, he claimed to have
been working at the Eisenhower White House and served on the
staff of MJ-12.

Yes, he commanded a
battalion at White Sands, but in an interview conducted on
video tape in July 1997, Corso tells the assembled reporters
that he commanded the White Sands Missile Range, not that he
had a battalion there or that he commanded a unit there but
that he commanded the Range.

>>There are documents about his involvement with Senator
>>Thurmond which suggest that Corso was a loose cannon and given
>>to flights of fantasy. These documents exist and can be found.
>>Hellyer's claims are just that, claims and do nothing to
>>validate Corso.

>All this is supposition on your part.

Actually, Corso made a big deal about the foreword that Thurmond
had written for his unpublished book I Walked With Giants: My
Career in Military Intelligence. That introduction turned up in
The Day After Roswell and Thurmond demanded that it be removed
from the book. Seems to me that this suggests something about
integrity. This episode has been well documented here and in
other arenas as well. Corso pulled a bait and switch on the
foreword, which is not very ethical. And according to a 1965
memo to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover:

"Corso is a self-styled intelligence expert who retired from the
military approximately three years ago, and he has been working
as one of Sen. Thurmond's many assistants. He has been a thorn
in our side because of self-initiated rumors, idle gossips and
downright lies he has spread to more or less perpetuate his own
reputation as an intelligence expert."

In a memo dated 11 Feb 1965, it was written,

"Corso is well known to the Bureau. He fancies himself as an
expect in the intelligence field and has a history of wholesale
accusations against many people and many agencies of the Federal
Government of plotting to subvert the Nation. He has caused many
agencies, including the FBI, to expend much manpower, money and
effort to disprove some of his injudicious accusations."

Pretty damning stuff - oh, yes, it comes from the FBI so we can
reject that out of hand because everyone knows what the FBI
really is. The FBI began the campaign to discredit Corso more
than forty years ago just in case he let his Roswell information
slip. Of course, for an indication of Corso's character, we
can always look at the lawsuit filed against him which caused
the cancellation of contracts for other books. But then, it
does suggest a history of spinning tales. Or to be blunt about
it - lying. >>>Since you support the existence of a Cosmic
Watergate, it's only >>>logical to assume that the military
would covertly implement >>>such a program in order to upgrade
the technological base of the >>>civilian sector. I assume you
and Stan would agree that would be >>>both feasible and logical
given the technological superiority of >>>visiting ETs and the
secrecy that was adopted as a national >>>security policy. What
better branch of the military than the >>>Foreign Technology
Desk at Army R & D to play such a role since >>>they already had
an extensive network of technology development >>>programs with
various corporations and could simply say that the >>>ET
technology was 'foreign technology'? It's only logical to
>>>assume that such a covert program existed, and that someone
like >>>Lt General Arther Trudea as head of Army R & D would
have played >>>a key role. Since Corso served for some time as
Trudeau's >>>military aide, then it is logical to assume that he
was given >>>that covert assignment by Trudeau when he was
assigned to the >>>FTD. >>>I hope that reseachers finally
focus on Corso's central claims >>>rather than the red herrings
you offer to diminish the >>>importance of his testimony.
>>I've focused on Corso's claims and find them without merit. If
>>we could verify something of importance, that would be one
>>thing, but to date, that hasn't happened. >Wow, I'm amazed
at your twisting of the data. You've focused on >a number of
minor inconsistence (red herrings in my view) and >conclude
that he embellished his testimomy. Thus all his claims >are
dismissed. You say if we could verify one thing of >importance
that would be the thing. Try this, Lt Col Philip >Corso was the
head of the Foreign Technologyy Desk of Army >Research and
Development. He would closely with the heard of >Army Research
and Development, Lt Gen Arther Truduae. These are >facts that
directly bear on the core of Corso's testimony. Yes, but he
said he was a colonel, when he was not, claimed to have led the
Foreign Technology Desk for two years when it was only for 90
days. He pulled the bait and switch on Thurmond that caused
Simon and Schuster to pulled the foreword from the book. >>And
the same can be said about Cliff Stone, whose embellishments
>>are well know, to Bob Lazar whose record as it has been found
>>suggests something other than a scholar and research
scientist, >>to Bob Dean who struck me as a very nice man but
whose tale has >>many holes in it, and Philip Corso who might
not have known the >>truth if it bit him on the butt. >>I have
also noticed that you cease communication when there have >>been
questions asked that you don't want answered. Stone has
>>offered three different versions of his involvement in the
>>Kecksburg case, but you haven't told me which is true. He
offers >>nothing that wasn't already known, other than his story
of 57 >>alien varieties, and he continues to dig his hole
deeper. >I have responded to all these criticisms elsewhere. I
fail to >see how repeating myself on the evidence offered by
Stone, >Lazar, etc., helps in moving forward in this dialogue.
>Presently, I am trying to get funds so I can fly over to New
>Mexico to meet Stone and see the documentation he has on hand.
>So far, I have been unable to get the documentation from Sgt
>Stone I require to continue the earlier discussion I had with
>you and Brad Sparks over Stone's credibility and claims. So I
>will eventually get back to you on that when I have something
to >report. Well, before you accept any documents, make sure
that they are authentic and that they can be verified. I mean,
we just saw a network anchor lose his job (though everyone says
he was going to retire anyway) when he endorsed as real, copies
of documents that he said were real. He failed to produce the
original documents and anyone with a computer and copy machine
can make really good forgeries these days. >>I just wonder
when you'll understand that the questions are >>legitimate and
not unreasonable. All I ask for is some evidence >>of the
veracity of the tales and not excuses on why that very
>>evidence can't be provided. >When it comes to providing
evidence of claims made by >whistleblowers, I have repeatedly
said we need to go beyond a >myopic focus on 'hard evidence'
and use 'soft evidence' such as >consistency of claims,
sincerity, intent, etc., to fully assess >whistleblower
credibility. Hard evidence is easily removed, >tampered with,
or destroyed as many credible whistleblowers >confirm. Given
the existence of Cosmic Watergate, something we >agree upon, I
think the real debate is one of the parameters of >Cosmic
Watergate. Is it just a conspiracy of silence and >strategic
deception as you and Stan Friedman suggest; or is it a >covert
effort to eliminate and alter documentation, and/or
>intimidate/eliminate witnesses. I.e., is Cosmic Watergate
>maintained by a 'hard' or 'soft cover up'? If we reach
agreement >on that, we might make progress on the issue of
assessing >whistleblower testimonies. "Extraordinary claims
require an >extraordinary investigative process." But you
suggest elsewhere that we look a the history of the
whistleblower to learn if he or she has a habit of telling tall
tales. In many of the cases, there is that sort of soft
evidence, which you have ignored. Both Stone and Corso have
documented histories of telling tales, so this would be the sort
of soft evidence that argues against their veracity. And Dean
apparently offered a document that was bogus to support his
claim of having been part of an intelligence unit. And you
claim repeatedly that some nefarious unit of the government is
out there removing all evidence that any of these
whistleblowers are who they say, yet the best evidence is that
they have altered their records and lied about their
accomplishments, just the sort of soft evidence you champion. So
how come you ignore this soft evidence?


KRandle