From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:58:35 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 07:46:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Friedman


>From: Mike Jamieson <mike.jamieson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:21:34 -0700
>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 04:48:44 -100
>>Subject: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

><snip>

>>There are many assumptions that Bishop makes that can be
>>seriously criticized. First should Richard Doty and William
>>Moore be believed that the information they fed to Bennewitz was
>>in fact disinformation, rather than rumors of disinformation
>>being spread to discredit Bennewitz and his legitimate claims of
>>extraterrestrial bases with captive humans? Bishop certainly
>>concludes the former from his interviews with Doty and Moore,
>>and curiously doesn't consider the latter possibility as
>>seriously worth considering. If Bennewitz was the subject of a
>>disinformation campaign, as most agree was indeed the case, then
>>should one find credible the testimony of individuals directly
>>participating in such a campaign? Bishop paints a sympathetic
>>picture of Moore as someone who unintentionally overstepped the
>>bounds of sensible research principles and cooperated with the
>>'wrong side' so to speak. The same cannot be said for Richard
>>Doty who was a professional in AFOSI and was a direct part of
>>the campaign to discredit Bennewitz. Bishop seems too eager to
>>accept Doty's and Moore's' versions of events that the
>>information Bennewitz claimed concerning underground
>>extraterrestrial bases and captive humans was in fact
>>disinformation fed to Bennewitz.

><snip>

>I don't know about Richard Doty, but I am sure Bill Moore could
>be counted on to be credible when he essentially laid out his
>self-destructive bombshell before that MUFON symposium. At that
>early date, the nonsense being laid out by Lear, Cooper,
>English, etc. was clearly exposed for what it was, thanks to
>Moore digging, in mole like fashion, into a little section of
>counter-intelligence land.

>I haven't read the book yet, and that would certainly help in
>seeing more about that slice of ufo history.

>But, I can remember talking to Moore before he gave that
>presentation. He was apparently in the middle of writing it. He
>told me the basic story, "of observing a counter intelligence
>operation in action", etc. and I remember thinking that was an
>invaluable revelation.

>I seem to remember, that in discussions following the MUFON
>conference revelations, that Moore would describe him
>encouraging Bennewitz to use his discriminating judgement and
>not take what he was passing on as necessarily being accurate.
>That was, reportedly, motivated by his (Moore's growing )
>concern over Bennewitz' health.

>I noticed, that whenever I spent any time with Moore (prior to
>public presentations a couple of times), he encouraged a sharply
>discriminating inquiry approach. He asked if I had read "The
>Unicorn's Secret", the tale about Ira Einhorn, his conspiracy
>theories, and his murdering ways. He also asked what I thought
>about the developing story by Bob Lazar. And, looked at it with
>an idea of doing so to develop a discriminating inquiry.

>That's why that I have to say that the whistleblowers you listed
>are what I feel are "fabulists". People fashioning fabulous
>stories. Wolf, Lazar, Burisch. And others. All taking some
>variation of the tales told by Lear and Cooper a couple of
>decades back and creating their own mini-series drama. Burisch,
>in particular, seems to have a big theater (in cyberspace) and a
>large audience kept enthralled by increasingly melodramatic
>dramas.

>I am beginning to wonder, Michael, if the single most useful
>tool we have nowadays is Peter Davenport's National UFO
>Reporting Center. A lot of the information that is "out there"
>(like ufoconspiracy.com) just seems like it comes out of that
>new modern journalistic school of "Fabulists": people crafting
>exciting stories that are not based on actual events/people,
>etc.

I worked closely with Bill Moore for several years. He has his
faults as do we all. I would take his word any time over that of
Michael Salla's so called whistleblowers such as Lazar, Wolf,
Milton William Cooper etc. Fabulist is a good word. Michael
Salla , I have trouble believing much of what you say because
you have so blindly accepted nonsense from these guys. I am sure
that the government is laughing it's head off  at seeing you do
so much well written disinformation... perhaps misinformation
would be better. Sure the government has lied.They can at least
hide behind national security. But what excuse can Lazar, Wolf
et al provide?

You want to believe that Corso was on the National Security
Council. If you do any checking (I know, not your style) you will
find that the NSC's membership is determined by Statute. He had
none of the positions that would have permitted him to be named
a member.Do you have any reason to claim that the Eisenhower
Library was lying when they said he was not a member and did not
attend any meetings? A referral letter about him makes clear he
was a liaison man... not a member. I have copies. Archivists
aren't perfect, but I surely have far more reason to believe them
than your so called whistleblowers. I know you disdain hard
evidence. How about presenting soft evidence if you want the
world to believe these claims?.


Stan Friedman