From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 07:27:39 -1000
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 08:51:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta - Salla


>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul com>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul net>
>Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:57:53 -0300
>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul com>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul net>
>>Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 12:51:18 -1000
>>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul com>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul net>
>>>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:14:56 -0300
>>>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

>>>>From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul com>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul net>
>>>>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:36:41 -1000
>>>>Subject: Re: Salla On Greg Bishop's Project Beta

<snip>

>>>>You for example accept that the government 'lies',
>>>>but don't accept that the government can and does withdraw
>>>>public documents and hard evidence for the purpose of
>>>>discrediting whistleblowers and witnesses.

>What is the basis for this claim? Please don't invoke Lazar and
>Corso to establish its validity. Do you have a specific example
>to provide with a source that can be checked? I supose you are
>saying that Lazar had his degrees stolen along with his thesis
>and his mind was messed with so he can't provide names of his
>profs (Duxler certainly wasn't one) or his thesis advisors. So
>how come the government missed Pierce JC?. Or is that because he
>was commuting between Pierce in the San Fernando Valley and MIT?

Aloha Stan,

There are a number of sources which we can use to accept claims
that the 'secret' government can and does withdraw public
documents and hard evidence. First we can look at the 'standard'
policy of UFO crash retreival teams that sanitise areas of all
hard evidence and intitimdate witnesses to maintain silence.
This happened at Roswell, where witnesses were intimidated and
evidence removed. Maj Marcel for example was forced to play
along with the official weather balloon version until he decided
to go public as you well know given your role in him coming
forward. In effect, he was discredited and other witnesses were
initmidated into silence back in 1947.

Second, we can look at Majestic Documents such as SOM-01 where a
procedure for crash retreivals is outlined and it's explicitly
mentioned that discrediting and intimidating witnesses is
standard operational policy (see Ch 3. 12. c.). So we have
documentary evidence that discrediting and intimidating
witnesses is part of the 'cover up'. It's safe to infer from
SOM-01 that this is also the case also for whistleblowers, and
that intimidating and discrediting whistleblowers is standard
operating procedure. Removing credentials and public documents
would be a pretty effective way of discrediting whistleblowers.

Finally, we have the testimonies of whistleblowers who describe
how documents were withdrawn and intimidation used in their own
cases. In addition to Lazar, we have Daniel Burisch, Michael
Wolf, Phil Schneider as some of the whistleblowers who claim
that this happened to them. Also military whistleblowers such as
Clifford Stone, Dan Sherman and Daniel Salter claim that their
military records do not contain reference to their true
assignments and training for UFO crash retreival teams or
'psychic communnications' with ETs. I know you dismiss these
whistleblowers as credible since there is no documentary
evidence to back up their claims. However, if they claim that
the documentary evidence of their education, employment or
service have been withdrawn or simply not recorded, then its
wrong to make such documents part of the threshold criteria for
assessing whistleblower credibility as you do. That's a
methodological weakness in your research approach and reflects
circular thinking. We simply need to develop social science
criteria for assessing whistleblower claims, and not assume that
documents and hard evidence will give us the answers.

<snip>

>>Michael Wolf is a very interesting and complicated case as you
>>well know. Firstly, Wolf's brother, Ron Kruvant, changed his
>>story after Michael Wolf died. Ron Kruvant was previously
>>interviewed and confirmed what Michael had to say about his
>>government education, UFO contacts, etc. I think we should
>>consider what factors drove Ron Kruvant to change his story
>>before you jump the gun and use his changed testimony to
>>discredit Wolf. Stories about Michael being in a Mental hospital
>>were made by his sister who was ten years Michael's junior and
>>was too young to remember Michael's activities with UFO's and
>>recruitment by the government, both of which were initially
>>confirmed before Ron Kruvant's retraction.

>Sorry wrong again. An old friend of Michael's sent a copy of the
>court document in which Michael's mother asked for more support
>because of the cost of his being in a mental hospital. I have no
>reason to think Ron changed his story based on my conversations
>with him.

I find this document you allege to have rather strange. What is
the likelihood that an 'old friend' would have such a document
and send it to you? It sounds suspicious to me. If you have it,
can you fax me a copy or scan it for the forum? I'd like to
confirm it and see exactly what it says. Until then, I choose to
remain sceptical about the veracity and source of such a
document.

As far as Ron Kruvant changing his story. That's a fact and
something that was reported by a credible researcher who
interviewed Ron Kruvant 2 years before he changed his story. If
you did not pick up that Ron Kruvant had changed his story, that
suggests that you asked the wrong questions and weren't aware of
what other researchers such as Jim Courant, Paola Harris and
Michael Hesseman had learned.

>>Michael Wolf himself
>>admited in an interview that his sister was mentally disturbed
>>so it's perhaps no surprise that she now accuses Wolf of this.

>I haven't talked to the sister. I looked at the document and
>talked to Ron and old friends.

>>As for your statements that Michael was not in the military,
>>close to the Clintons, and had no degrees, these are based on
>>lack of documentation. Lack of documentation does not prove
>>Michael Wolf was lying, it merely points to that and a number of
>>alternative explanations.

>Have you constructed a time-line to allow for all the education
>and to become a colonel and a pilot? For a guy who flunked out
>of Upsala... no record of law, Medical or Physics degrees, no
>names of thesis advisors, no theses or titles therefor, no
>pre-med, no physics background before MIT and Cal Tech, no
>published papers, no membership in Amer. Phys. Soc. This for a
>guy who lived in a tiny apartment and couldn't afford to pay in
>advance for his burial..... A guy who claimed to be emeritus
>chairman of a Research Institute employing more than 75 people
>but whose address was his tiny apartment and for which not even
>Dunn and Bradstreet could find any evidence..... Michael, I do
>have a nice bridge near Brooklyn that I would be happy to sell
>you at a real bargain price

Stan, it's well known that the Brooklyn bridge is only sold on
leap years. What do you take me for?

As for Michael Wolf's education, I believe Michael Wolf's and
Ron Kruvant's testimony that Michael was secretly recruited into
a government education program as a child prodigy due to his
precocious mental abilities to be very credible. Michael Wolf
was a precocious child and at a very early age displayed
remarkable intellectual abilities and a capacity to communicate
with UFOs . George Hunt Williams wrote about Michael's
successful efforts in his book, Road In The Sky (1959). Here's
what Williamson wrote about Wolf when only 14 years of age (he
was born 1941): "On December 24, 1955, Michael W. Kruvant,
director of the Flying Saucer Research Association of South
Orange, New Jersey, transmitted a message to outer space
intelligences via his light beam equipment. Five seconds after
the message had gone out, two oval-shaped objects passed over
his house in a northern direction. The great confirmation in
this sighting is the fact that Mr. Kruvant had specifically
asked in his transmitted message that the UFOs go over heading
north to let him know his message had been received. A very nice
Christmas Eve gift for one Earthman!" (p. 150).

So here we have independent confirmation that Wolf was
initiating communications with ETs at 14 years of age, and
headed a nascent Flying Saucer Association in New Jersey that
attracted the attention of a well known UFO researcher. This
substantiates Wolf's claim that government authorities took a
keen interest in Wolf's communnications with ETs, his education,
and then recruited him into a government sponsored education
program. Trying to construct a timeline for what appears to be a
child prodigy is not likely to be fruitful in my view. Normal
timelines for completing medical degrees, PhD, etc., are not
likely to have much relevance for someone who's IQ approaches
the 200 range as opposed to the rest of us waiting for the next
leap year to make our Brooklyn Bridge bids.

>>The one I believe is applicable is
>>that he worked on classified projects as he claimed and was
>>verified by a number of researchers. Jim Courant, Paola Harris
>>and Michael Hesseman all personally travelled to Connecticut to
>>interview Michael Wolf, check his documents and overhead
>>converstations he had with medical experts and acclaimed
>>scientists. They were convinced he was legitimate. You never
>>physically visited Michael Wolf to check his claims as Courant,
>>Harris and Hesseman did. I believe their conclusions are more
>>reliable than your own and I consider Michael Wolf to be a
>>legitimate whistleblower.

>Funny they couldn't provide copies of any diplomas or the other
>missing info noted above. Don't forget I had many phone
>conversations with Michael before they came on the scene.

They were personally able to verify some of Wolf's documents
when visiting him in his apartment. In a recent post on this
forum by Maurizio Baiata, he claims to have taken photos of
Wolf's credentials. It appears that Wolf kept some of his
documents that were no longer in the public realm and showed
them only to a few researchers. Since you did not visit Wolf,
something that Michael apparently was very dissappointed about,
you did not see the documents he possessed. I don't see any
reason why we should dismiss the research findings of those who
did physically interview Michael and check out his documents,
just because you concluded from phone interviews that he was not
credible.

>>>Bob Lazar did take at least one class at Pierce Junior College
>>>near LA under physics Prof. William Duxler. He claimed Duxler
>>>taught Physics at Cal Tech. NOT TRUE... only at Pierce. No one
>>>has provided any evidence that he has received any degrees from
>>>anywhere. He did not work for Los Alamos. He worked for Kirk
>>>Meyer. He received his high school diploma on Long Island in
>>>August having taken one science course, chemistry. His
>>>educational and professional claims are _nonsense_, not even an
>>>advisor for his MS thesis. I have noted the many checks I have
>>>done with many offices at MIT etc

>>Here we go ahead with your document searches. Stan, I'm puzzled
>>why you won't accept that the documentary records of those
>>working on classified projects can and are regularly removed or
>>tampered with as a condition of employment to guard against
>>unauthorized disclosure of information.

>Here you go again with a totally unsubstantiated claim. Are you
>forgetting I had a Q and Secret clearance for 14 years? Sure
>doesn't work well to keep down unauthorized disclosure from Wolf
>and Lazar does it?

Why do you claim that I'm making an unsubstantiated claim here?
I'm using whistleblower testimonies that documents are changed,
removed, etc., as a standard security procedure for deep black
projects. That's very plausible and fits with what would be a
reasonable deductive reasoning process for how operational
security is maintained.

Security clearances are standard for those working with
sensitive information. Having held a Q and Secret clearance
doesn't give you the inside scoop on classified projects that
lie outside the specific areas you were cleared to work on while
you were engaged in the corporate/government world. You would
however be familiar with the penalties associated with
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. In the case
of those like Wolf and Lazar who do make unauthorized
disclosures, it appears that discrediting is the main strategy
used to deal with such individuals.

>>Perhaps you have you not
>>sufficiently thought through what has been set up by the
>>government. That's surprising since you have researched both
>>Roswell crash and some of the Majestic Documents (EBD and SOM)
>>and find them credible. Don't you see the implications of your
>>own research? If Roswell and the Majestic documents are
>>credible, then a system is in place to systematic discredit and
>>intimidate whistleblowers/witnesses and remove public records of
>>employees to maintain secrecy.

>This is total hogwash. I accept Roswell and MJ-12 (EBD,TF, CT)
>because of all the specific and detailed evidence which I have
>provided to back up my claims. I noted certain Tim Cooper
>documents were fraudulent because I found the originals which
>were emulated. Yes, Michael, documented evidence. I say Menzel
>did work for the CIA and NSA, and lots of companies, because I
>have copies of his letters to JFK, docs. re. his NSA employment,
>statements in his unpublished autobiography, etc. I say Twining
>was in NM July 7 - 11 because I managed to locate copies of his
>flight log, his pilot's flight log, and a newspaper article
>about his being at White Sands. I say TOP SECRET RESTRICTED was
>in use during the Ike years because the GAO said they found
>examples of it, etc. etc..

Your argument here is not persuasive. You claim my inference
about a secret system that is in place that systematically
removes and alters documents is hogwash. You then go on to
outline your successful events to substantiate many questions in
UFOlogy through succesful document searches. In what way does
that preclude what I'm saying? I'm not saying ALL government
documents are altered and removed, only those dealing with
classififed documents concerning EBEs, ETVs, and the credentials
of whistleblowers who worked in such projects. You are
mistakenly assuming that documentation of sources is the means
for unravelling the UFO enigma and you more than anyone else
have been a pioneer in this effort. I'm saying that this is
insufficient. We need to use undocumented sources such as
whistleblower testimonies since the documentary trail can and
does run dry when we get to classified projects on EBEs, ETVs,
etc. I'm not saying what you have been doing is useless, you've
opened up some cracks in the secrecy system that is in place.
That is helpful and you are to be congratulated for that, but
it's insufficient for the task of unravelling what is really
happening in the classified world of secret ETV and EBE
projects. I think documentation of sources and analysing
undocumented sources of information such as whistleblowers are
complementary and not mutually exclusive.

>You say Wolf and Lazar must have been telling the truth because
>there is no evidence because the government must have eliminated
>it. Which approach makes more sense?

You say Wolf and Lazar must be lying because there is no
documentation or hard evidence that their documentation or hard
evidence has been removed or altered. Your position doesn't make
sense. I'm saying we need to go beyond documentation and hard
evidence as the exclusive criteria upon which to base UFO
research simply because many whistleblowers have sufficient
integrity and credibility to warrant a thorough examination and
analysis of their claims. If we don't go beyond documentation
and hard evidence, UFOlogy will never walk through the doorway
into the secret world of classified projects that focus on EBEs,
ETVs, etc.

>>That's the logical outcome of
>>your own research and yet you refuse to accept this.

>My logical outcome is to go with the facts and data and make
>claims supported by them. You say since you believe the
>government gets rid of evidence that the absence of evidence is
>evidence these liars are telling the truth... how quaint.

In your process of going with the facts and 'data' you dismiss
as 'data' the testimonies of numerous well credentialled and
credibile individuals who reveal information about classified
projects involving EBEs and ETVs. Your research criteria need to
be expanded and are presently insufficient to deal with ALL the
data that is available. In the social sciences, you would be
hounded out of a department for advocating the restrictive
research criteria you are passing off as 'rigorous science'.
I've seen what has happened to those who advocate such
restrictive research methods in a number of social science
departments, and it's not pretty too see how any social
scientist wanting to emulate natural science methodologies will
have a very tough time in many social science departments. Since
UFOlogy has been dominated by those with natural science
methodologies, e.g., Hynek, MacDonald, etc., then this problem
has not be sufficiently addressed. I'm bringing it to the
attention of the forum since I believe social science
methodologies have a major role to play in UFO research.

>>>Bob's physics claims are more double-talk. Yes, 4 atoms of
>>>element 115 have been created in a period of a month at a huge
>>>accelerator. The half life is too short for anybody to collect
>>>500 pounds as Bob has alleged. I have noted many more, you should
>>>pardon the expression, facts

>>The scientists who produced the 4 atoms of element 115 said that
>>in theory a stable isotope could be created using technology
>>that doesn't presently exist on earth. That means that
>>extraterrestrials with advanced technologies can produce stable
>>isotopes of 115. Since Lazar claimed that the 500 pounds came
>>from ET sources, then Lazar's testimony was validated.

>Again we have a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim. The term
>stability is used by guys working on high atomic number elements
>to mean half lives in the range of milliseconds. This is
>comparatively stable because most such isotopes have half-lives
>a thousand times shorter.

Why do you claim that scientists speculating on the possibility
of stable forms of 115 are making ridiculous claims? Here is
what the scientists resposible for producing 115 say in response
to a question from Linda Moulton Howe about the possibility of
producing a stable form of 115:


http://www.intalek.com/Index/News/Element115.htm

"Could there be an element 115 isotope that is solid and can be
held in the hand?"

Some day down the road, I think so. If it's true that we find
something that is long enough lived. To hold something in your
hand, you would need a significant quantity of these atoms.
We've produced four atoms of Element 115 in a month. It would
take -- you don't have enough time in the rest of the universe to
create enough that you could hold in your hand through these
same kinds of production methods (that we are using). That's why
I say a future technology might allow us advances in terms of
how much can be produced and the target material, maybe a better
way of producing -- but somewhere down the road, there might be a
possibility, sure.


So if the scientists producing the four elements of 115 believe
it's possible to create a stable version of 115 that can be held
in the hand, then you are clearly overreaching in your dismissal
of such a possibility. This lends support to Lazar's claims of
having handled a stable isotope of 115 that was produced by ETs.

>>>Michael, I gather you will believe what you want to believe, but
>>>you are certainly undermining the efforts of legitimate
>>>Whistleblowers by promoting _nonsense_. Please provide any
>>>evidence, soft, hard, or medium, that these _nonsensical_claims_
>>>are legitimate.

>>In your view Stan, are there any legitimate whistleblowers
>>discussing classified projects involving EBE's and/or ET
>>technologies?

>I like Salas' testimony (doesn't deal with EBE or ET Tech.)
>but no, I know of none. Do you?

Thanks for responding. Salas was a whistleblower for a UFO
sighting. There are dozens of whistlelbowers who provide
testimonies of having worked on classified projects involving
EBEs and ETVs. In addition to those in Steven Greer's Disclosure
Book, e.g., Bill Uhouse, Don Phillips, Clifford Stone, etc.,
there are whistlelbowers like Bob Lazar, Charles Hall, Steve
Wilson, Dan Burisch, Phil Schneider, etc. Of these dozens of
whistleblowers, I think its very revealing that you don't find
one to be sufficiently credible or 'legitimate' - not one! It
shows the methodological failure of asserting that only
documentation and verifiable evidence are sufficent for
legitimate UFO research. Your response is quite revealing and I
hope readers take note of it, and why I contend conventional UFO
research fails to adequately deal with whistleblower
testimonies.

>><snip>

>>>Corso made a sworn statement to attorney Peter Gersten that he
>>>had been a member of the NSC. He refused to withdraw it when
>>>Peter showed him the letter from the Eisenhower Library.
>>>Incidentally, many of the minutes and lists of attendees at a
>>>host of NSC meetings are not any longer classified. Liaison
>>>people like Corso were concerned with particular areas not all
>>>NSC activities and did not even have a need to know for what
>>>other people were concerned with.....

>>What precisely did Corso say in the sworn statement to Gersten?
>>I'd like to see it. Corso, as I showed in the quote I supplied,
>>only ever said that he served on the staff of the National
>>Security Council. He was not a member and did not claim to be.
>>You are defending a red herring in insisting that Corso claimed
>>to be a member of the NSC. He was on the staff of the NSC. These
>>are very different job descriptions.

>Ask Peter Gersten.

You say, "many of the minutes and lists of attendees at a host
of NSC meetings are not any longer classified." You are being
evasive here. What you precisely mean by 'many'? What NSC
meetings? What time period? Were these partial or complete lists
of attendees? Did the lists included non-statutory members of
the NSC. Also, Corso claimed that part of his NSC assignment
involved working with MJ-12 as Kevin Randel atested in Corso's
book proposal he has in his possession. This more strongly
suggests that the meetings that Corso attended, if any, were and
still are classified. So your failure to get confirmation from
the Eisenhower library was very likely due to the information
concerning Corso still being classified. You do not ask the
right questions of the Eisenhower librarian due to your
misplaced optimism in documentation being freely available to
the general public. Perhaps I'm being a little provocative here
and this caused you some irritation in the previous post, but I
think that if you ask the Eishenhower library questions about
the attendence of NSC meetings, you need to find out more about
how many NSC meetings have been declassified, etc.

<snip>

>Michael, you didn't answer my question about whether you had
>been to the Ike Library and what your basis for the claims you
>make is. I looked at minutes of many NSC meetings which had been
>declassified. Some were indeed censored even ones marked as TOP
>SECRET EYES ONLY. But it was never the attendance which was
>censored. I have copies here.

I am not a 'true believer' in document searches in unravelling
the UFO enigma, and I choose to currently focus my research
efforts on investigating whistleblower testimonies by conducting
interviews, colloborating with others researching whistleblower
testimoniess, and focusing on 'soft evidence' such as the
coherence of their claims, their integrity and cross
referencing. Due to my skepticism of finding anything valuable,
I am yet to visit the Eisenhower, Truman or any Presidential
library. As for the source of my claims, as I've repeatedly
said, I've found the testimonies of whistleblowers backed by the
research of competent investigators to be persuasive.

As far as NSC meetings are concerned, we need to clarify a few
things. By statute, the NSC has in attendence a number of
cabinet level officials. These include the President and Vice-
President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the NSC Advisor, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of Central
Intelligence. Now these and a few others attend NSC meetings by
statute. In addition, there are the heads of other executive
departments and agencies, and other senior officials, who may be
invited to attend meetings of the NSC when necessary. Now these
are are all senior officials and not all of those who have a
non-statutory presence will be present at all meetings. Lt Col
Corso did not have the rank to attend NSC meetings unless he was
invited for a specific purpose. So if Corso did attend NSC
meetings, and that would not have been necessary for him to
complete his duties as an NSC staffer, then it may at most have
been a few meetings.

So that means that even if you have in your possession 50% of
NSC meetings and the full list of attendees during the
Eisenhower administration, that would be insufficient. Only if
you got the complete list would you be able to ascertain if
Corso attended any NSC meetings. However, this is a red herring
since Corso did not claim to have been present at NSC meetings,
all he claimed was that he served on the staff to the NSC during
the Eisenhower administration. Corso did not need to be present
at NSC meetings to fulfill his mission. As a Lt-Col he would
have been pretty low in the pecking order and would most likely
have been fulfilling some liason role. Stan, why do you pursue
this red herring and offer it as a major problem in determining
Corso's credibility?

>>Also, when did I say anything about Corso being an important cog
>>in the NSC wheel? He was a Lt Col appointed as a staff member to
>>the NSC comprising Cabinet level officials. He was no important
>>cog. The important stuff happened when he was head of the Army's
>>Foreign Technology Desk at the Pentagon. Why are you focusing on
>>his NSC service when you have had no luck in finding
>>documentation to satisfy your penchant for documentary
>>verification of whistleblower testimonies?

>Michael once again you ignore the facts. I have the 4 page legal
>size two column roster of the group under Trudeau - from the
>Army Archives at Carlisle, PA. There indeed was a Foreign
>Technology group. It had two people in it. Corso was the junior
>member. I had direct dealings with the USAF FTD at Wright
>Patterson in the same time frame. They had dozens of employees -
>many of them highly technical, unlike Corso. They had wreckage
>in 1947. You are seemingly claiming that Corso, with no
>scientific or engineering background, by himself, introduced all
>those "new technologies" into US industry, but USAF FTD hadn't
>done so, even though an important part of their job was working
>with industry, in Operation Gold Eagle, and in projects such as
>mine (at Aerojet General Nucleonics) "Analysis and Evaluation of
>Fast and Intermediate Reactors for Space Vehicle Applications".
>(Russian tech.)

I'm glad you were able to find documentary evidence that Corso
served in the Foreign Technology desk at the Pengagon. As for
Corso being a 'junior member' or for him having headed for
Foreign Technology Group for only 90 days rather than two years
as Kevin Randle claims, we need to know the chain of command. Lt
Col is sufficient rank to head a small department in the
Pentagon even if he is technically subordinate to another
officer, aside from Trudeau, who is responsible for a number of
desks including Corso's. Corso's claim of heading a desk in the
Foreign Technology may involve some semantic discussion of who
was precisely in charge given the existence of a chain of
command under which Corso's small department was located in a
larger group. Despite the precise nature of Corso's position,
it's clear he had the rank to head a desk and since he worked in
the Foreign Technology group, then it's plausible he played the
role he claimed.

As for your questions over Corso playing the role he claimed in
disseminating ET technologies into private industry, that's the
crux of the issue here and I'm glad we've gotten around to that.
I don't claim to have sufficient technical competence to analyse
Corso's claims here, but I believe they are worthy of serious
study given his verified position at the Foreign Technology desk
and his claims concerning ET technology.

>>>I am glad to see you have done some homework on the NSC. I have
>>>no idea where your claims about what is, or isn't, classified and
>>>about Corso originate. Have you actually been to the Ike Library
>>>and had dealings with their archivists? Or are you making your
>>>comments up as you go along.

>>The attendence at NSC meetings is classified information. That
>>is well known among foreign policy professionals and I'm
>>surprised you weren't aware of this.

>So why are so many lists of NSC meeting attendees unclassified?
>This is 2005 in case you hadn't noticed it.

As I noted in my earliery clarification, the attendence of NSC
meetings involves both statutory and non-statutory attendees.
The list of non-statutory attendees would reveal the agenda of
the NSC meeting. That would be deemed to be a threat to national
security and thus makes the attendence of NSC meetings subject
to classification. So yes, we know which statutory officials
attend NSC meeting in 2005, but the non-statutory officials is
classified until some indeterminate future time .

<snip>

>We are talking about events and meetings prior to 1962.

>Please answer my questions:

>1. Have you ever had a security clearance?

>2. Have you ever been to the Eisenhower or Truman Libraries?

It's normal to assume that events and meetings prior to 1962 are
more likely to move through the declassification process and be
available to researchers such as yourself who frequent archives
and Presidential libraries. However, as we are all aware, events
and meetings concerning EBEs, ETVs, etc., such the Roswell crash
and MJ-12 meetings in 1947, vividly demonstrate how these
matters are still subject to classification regardless of the
declassification process put in place my Presidents such as
Clinton. So regardless of the frequency of visits of archives
and Presidential libraries, there will be no success in
accessing these classified documents.

As for your questions, I've already answer your second question
and in response to the first, I have never required a security
clearance in any of my academic appointments in Australia or the
U.S.

In peace,

Michael Salla