Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Reply to Kevin Randle's Criticisms of Military Whistleblowers

Expand Messages
  • Dr Michael Salla
    Aloha All, I ve been having some discussion with different members of UFO Updates concerning my recent article that was posted on UFO Updates concerning the
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 14, 2005
      Aloha All, I've been having some discussion with different members
      of UFO Updates concerning my recent article that was posted on UFO
      Updates concerning the "Faith based Approach" of some UFO
      researchers to the UFO phenomenon. You can read my original article
      at: http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-28.htm
      I just received a post from Capt Keven Randle (ret) who is a well
      known UFO researcher and author who dismisses the relevance of some
      of the military whistleblowers I raise as examples of well
      credentialed military whistleblowers who are credible enough for
      their testimonies to be seriously considered. Below is a post which
      responds to his criticisms that are in the body of my post. You can
      read K. Randle's original post at:
      I've inserted initials MS and KR in my reply so you can more easily
      identify the dialogue.

      In peace

      Michael Salla, PhD

      Aloha Kevin, one of the points I've been making in this thread is
      that it's important to have the correct premises upon which to base
      UFO research. I've claimed that we need to distinguish between
      a 'soft' and 'hard' cover up of the UFO phenomenon. Veteran UFO
      researchers generally agree that a 'soft' cover up exists in that
      public officials are instructed not to disclosue UFO
      information, cases withdrawn from public access, 'hard evidence'
      withdrawn from sites of alleged UFO crashes, etc. It's however
      the 'hard' cover up which is more difficult for veteran researchers
      to acknowledge in the sense of evidence tampering, witness
      intimidation, removal of public records, discrediting
      whistleblowers/witnesses, etc. However, there is clear
      testimonial evidence that such a 'hard' cover up exists as with a
      number of whistleblowers who have come forward, and the
      intimidation, threats, etc., meted out to whistleblowers and/or
      witnesses. This extends to whistleblowers/witnesses allegedly being
      eliminated as contended by Dan Morris, Daniel Salter, Wendelle
      Stevens and covered in an article by Cope Schellhorn,
      http://www.metatech.org/ufo_research_magazine_evidence.html .

      This means that one takes a considerable risk in making hard
      evidence the fulcrum upon which to base UFO research. That risk is
      similar to jumping off a cliff in the faith that the truth will come
      forth due to the integrity of the researchers and the scientific
      methods they bring to bear on the available hard evidence. Such an
      approach is clearly faith based and has the appearance of science
      since it faithfully adheres to the need to analyse hard evidence.
      However, that approach flies in the face of the evidence of a
      'hard cover up' underway which is well orchestrated, funded and done
      by professionals in various national security agencies. If I'm
      correct, and there's considerable testimonial evidence (Disclosure
      Project) and documentary evidence (Majestic Documents) to support my
      contention, then making hard evidence the fulcrum to analyse
      whistleblower testimonies is necessarily flawed.

      This brings me to your allegations concerning the three
      whistleblowers whose military credentials in my view lend
      plausibility to their claims: Phillip
      Corso, Robert Dean and Clifford Stone. You raise some objections to
      their plausiblity due to 'hard evidence' that they may have
      fabricated part of their stories or that parts of their testimonies
      don't check out. I think your approach raises two red flags. First,
      your style is similar to a court room attorney who wants to
      discredit witnesses by focusing on minor inconsistencies in their
      testimonies and backgrounds. The attorney's hope is
      that by discrediting them in this way, you can get the judge/jury to
      dismiss their testimony. I don't see you at all interested in the
      claims Corso, Dean and Stone are making, you just want to focus on
      inconsistencies that you claim to be critical to their credibility,
      but appear to me to be red herrings. Second, you make hard evidence
      the 'litmus test' for whistleblower credibilty and ignore evidence
      that a hard cover up is underway that could easily mask some aspects
      of a whistleblowers background or testimony. So keeping these red
      flags in mind, I'll respond as best I can to your
      > While each "phony whistleblower" might have an interesting tale
      > to tell, that doesn't mean the tale is true. And while there
      > seems to be little or no hard evidence to support them, there is
      > some hard evidence to suggest they are not telling the truth.
      > Philip Corso claimed to be a colonel, explained that he had been
      > promoted to colonel upon retirement, yet his military records
      > does not reflect such a promotion.

      [MS]Corso begins his book, The Day After Roswell, by clearly stating
      that he was a Lt-Colonel who headed up the Foreign Technology Desk
      for a two year period in the 1960s. I don't have access to his
      military records so I can't confirm or deny what happened upon his
      retirement and the details of his promotion.
      What happened during his tenure at the Foreign Technology desk is
      certainly the crux of his credibility as a whistleblower. Why would
      an individual with such a sterling military service record as
      Corso's concoct such a tale in his autobiography which establishes
      his legacy? I think it reasonable to conclude that he was not
      telling a tall tale but giving a factual account of
      his work at the Pentagon while at the Foreign Technology desk. While
      no hard evidence was given to support Corso's claims, he put his
      reputation and legacy on the line in coming forward. His credibility
      as a witness comes from his service record and very senior positions
      he held. I think your point about Corso's service record and
      promotion is a red herring.

      > [KR]He claimed to have been the
      > commander at the White Sands Missile Range yet all the
      > commanders except for the very first, and one who took over
      > temporarily have been generals. The White Sands website provides
      > a list of the commanders and Corso is not on the list. He
      > claimed, at one point, to have been a member of MJ-12 and was
      > not (assuming that MJ-12 is a real committee) and he induced
      > Senator Strom Thurman to write an introduction for his book
      > claiming it was about his brushes with greatness, when it was
      > about the Roswell UFO crash.

      [MS] As far as I'm aware, Corso never claimed to be a member of MJ-
      12, he just referred to its existence and composition.

      Corso discussed the circumstances surrounding his use of Strom
      Thurman foreword in an interview with Michael Lindeman (see:
      http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/roswell018.html ).
      Corso claims he told Thurman of the UFOs he discussed in his book
      and that Thurman nevertheless agreed to write the foreword for the
      Day After Roswell and understood it was about UFOs. It's likely that
      during his employment service for the former Senator he discretely
      divulged some of the projects he worked on despite his alleged vow
      to Lt Gen Trudeau to not go public. Thurman may have written the
      foreward as a favor to a former close advisor but once his
      staffers discovered what was in Corso's book, they quickly rescinded
      permission for the foreword to be used.

      > [KR] Some pictures in his books of UFOs
      > are well known fakes and if Corso was who he claimed to be, he
      > should have known this. Interviewed on the radio with Frank
      > Kaufmann, when there was a conflict, he bowed to Kaufmann who
      > has since been proven to be a fraud. If Corso was who he claimed
      > to be, he should have known about Kaufmann. His tale of seeing
      > an alien body at Ft. Riley, KS, as the convoy made it's way from
      > Roswell to Wright Field, is phony, for a number of reasons, not
      > the least of which is the way he was shown the alien body at the
      > suggestion of his friend, when he should have turned his friend
      > in for violation of security (Yes, I know you"ll say that it was
      > his friend and he didn't want him to get into trouble, but just
      > what in the hell was the friend doing going through classified
      > crates anyway and how did he get access to them?)
      [MS] As for the veracity of the photos in Corso's books, I don't
      know where you got your information that they are "well known
      fakes". There may be considerible controversy about them, but that
      doesn't make them fakes. I don't know about Kaufman and the incident
      you are referring to. As for the alleged convoy through Ft Riley,
      the 'friend' was in fact the sergeant on guard duty and had peered
      into the contents of the boxes he was guarding.
      The Sergeant had some time invited Corso to join a bowling team so
      that was the basis of their relationship. Corso was a Major at the
      time and the Sergeant an NCO, so it's a bit of a stretch to say he
      was Corso's friend.

      > [KR] Cliff Stone managed to rise in rank to E-7, not all that
      > impressive for a military career that lasted more than twenty
      > years. In an article published in UFO magazine (Vol 13, No 6,
      > 1998, and no, I"m not going to type in the article for two
      > reasonsâ?¦ one, it's too long and two, that would be a violation
      > of copyright) Stone claims that he had "never been trained as a
      > clerk typist," yet his service record shows that about his only
      > training in the Army (other than basic training) was as a clerk
      > typist. He attended school at the USATC for eight weeks and was
      > awarded the military occupation speciality (MOS) of "Clktypist
      > 71B in 1968. He took an advanced NCO school for five weeks in
      > 1982 and a one week school labeled as "headstart" in 1989. So,
      > in other words, about the only training he did have was as a
      > typist. His assignments, throughout his military career have one
      > thing in common. They are all labeled as clerk or admin. None of
      > the strange assignments he claimed and no holes in his record
      > for such assignments. Oh, yes, his records were altered. I
      > forgot.
      [MS] If Stone was recruited to work as a specialist for the
      retrieval of crashed disks as he claims, that wouldn't appear on his
      army record since it would have been a compartmentalised black
      project. As for altering records for those working in such projects,
      I would argue that is standard security procedure for
      compartmentalised black projects. The Project Manager for each
      project would be responsible for security and could easily make it
      mandatory for a servicemen's record not to include anything that
      would hint of the kind of specialized training Stone claims to have
      received. It would make sense to have Stone's service record include
      him training as a typist, when
      he in fact was being trained for the retreival of ETVs.

      > He claims, in this article that this did not stop him "from
      > various times crawling out through our, what we called a "kill
      > zone" which was 300 meters that was cleared in our perimeter all
      > the way around the base camp. When crawling out of that kill
      > zone, at nights and every now and then, I"d run into an enemy
      > patrol or something of this sort and I would actually find
      > myself shooting at the enemy and the enemy shooting at me."
      > What utter crapâ?¦ Where were the perimeter guards while he was
      > crawling through the wire? Don Ecker, in that same issue of the
      > magazine wrote, "This is where I think Stone's story breaks
      > down: The idea that a single, unaccompanied American soldier
      > would go crawling out through the wire, by himself, to play tag
      > with the NVA or VC , and not have any sanctions from above
      > strikes me as patently ridiculous."
      [MS] There may be some inconsistency in Stone's story about his
      experience, but you seize upon that as hard evidence that he is
      fabricating his war experiences and someone not to be trustred. This
      appears to me to be another red herring you are raising.

      > [KR] The first time I met Stone in his home in Roswell, he tried to
      > convince us of his importance by going out to his car to
      > retrieve some "Top Secret" documents. He carried them through
      > the living room so that we could see the cover sheets on them.
      > If he had left top secret material in his car, then he was going
      > to jail. He also pointed to the sticker on his car noting that
      > it was blue, suggesting to us that he was actually an officer.
      > What he didn't know is that I knew that system had been changed
      > so that all the stickers were blue and it was the small strip
      > under it that denoted the rank. Stone's was the proper color for
      > an NCO. I could go on listing Stone's claim to have been at the
      > Kecksburg UFO crash recovery to his viewing (through a hole in
      > the curtains) of the largely discredited alien autopsy film but
      > what is the point?
      [MS] Again, I don't see any major issue here. Just some
      inconsistencies you identify that you blow up as hard evidence that
      he is fabricating his testimony and not to be trusted.

      > [KR] Let's talk about Bob Dean, a very likable man who rose to the
      > highest enlisted grade of command sergeant-major, not an easy
      > thing to do. Very few people reach that rank. However, his story
      > of how he saw The Assessment (at least in one version) smacks of
      > hoax. He said that he was the NCOIC at the command post one
      > night and was having trouble staying awake. The OIC pulled The
      > Assessment out of the Top Secret vault and gave it to Dean with
      > the instruction to read it. That would keep him awake. Top
      > secret documents are just not routinely handed to people to keep
      > them awake.
      [MS] At best there may be a minor discrepancy in what Dean was
      relating here about what when and how he was told about, The
      Assessment. Dean was part of the intelligence briefing team for
      General Lyman 'Linditser' (?) who was the Supreme Allied Commander
      in Europe (SACEUR). Dean claimed to have a Cosmic Top Secret
      clearance as part of his job so anything he saw was very highly
      classified. I find it ridiculous to assert that the Assessment would
      have been a hoax that he and others on the briefing team had been
      instructed to read in different shifts in order to stay awake. Dean
      describes the circumstances around reading the Assesment in an
      interview at:
      http://www.planetarymysteries.com/hieronimus/bobdean.html. I think
      your idea that the Assessment was a hoax designed to keep Dean and
      others awake is another red herring.

      > [KR] In another version, Dean suggested that when he arrived at
      > for a tour there, he learned the study was already underway and
      > that having the required clearance, he often studied the pages
      > while passing time in the quiet evenings. Except that having the
      > required clearance didn't automatically give him a Need to Know,
      > and without that, he wouldn't have had access to the document.
      > His position at SHAPE certainly didn't require that he be
      > brought in on something like The Assessment.
      [MS] If Dean was an intelligence analyst on the briefing team to the
      SACEUR staff, then he would have had a 'need to know', and thus
      access to the document.

      > [KR] But, like so much of the whistleblowers" testimony, Dean's
      > breaks down because there is no corroboration for it, and in
      > fact, there are some very disturbing aspects are it. Dean told
      > researcher Tim Good that Fred Hoyle had worked as a consultant
      > to The Assessment. When asked about this, Hoyle wrote that there
      > wasn't an element of truth to the story.
      [MS] If Hoyle was brought in as a consultant for a highly
      classified "Cosmic" document, I would hardly expect him to divulge
      this to UFO researchers such as Good. Hoyle would be breaking
      whatever security oath he had taken, and risking whatever privileges
      he had while working as a consultant if he told Good about the
      existence of the Assessment.

      > [KR] Compare this to the response of Robert Sarbacher, who, when
      > asked about his touch with the crashed saucers story, told all
      > who wrote or called that he did have some limited knowledge of
      > it and that he had been quoted correctly in the past.
      > There are other problems. Dean claimed that the French had
      > duplicated The Assessment before giving it back to NATO and then
      > had given it to the Research group G.E.P.A.N., except that the
      > French left NATO in 1967 and G.E.P.A.N didn't exist at that
      > time. The conclusion of Good's investigation was that The
      > Assessment, as described by Dean, did not exist. Please note
      > here that Tim Good is a UFO researcher and would not be party to
      > the cover up. He would be at the front shouting about it, if it
      > existed in this case.
      [MS] France left the integrated command structure of NATO in 1967,
      but has never left NATO and remains a member. I would have to see
      what Good said before I comment on it.

      > [KR] So, here we are, with three of the whistleblowers whose
      > do not check out, with documentation that suggests they are not
      > who they claim to be, and who can produce no hard evidence that
      > they were where they claimed or saw what they claimed and about
      > whom the evidence suggests they have been less than honest. Just
      > why should we take anything that they say seriously?
      > KRandle
      [MS] I think all you have demonstrated is that you have similar
      competence to a courtroom attorney intent on dismissing the
      credibility of testimonies that you don't want the judge/jury to
      consider in a case where one's substantive
      arguments are quite weak. You bring up a number of red herrings that
      distract attention from the substance of the claims that Dean, Stone
      and Corso raise. One can quibble all day over the credibility of
      these and other whistleblowers based on minor inconsistencies or
      anomalies in their service records as you have done. However, if one
      accepts that a 'hard cover up' is underway, then logic dictates that
      the absence of hard evidence does not negate considering the actual
      content of these and other whistleblower testimonies.

      If we don't take whistleblowers seriously, then a whole category of
      evidence will be effectively ignored making the task of finding out
      what is really happening in the classified world of alleged
      ETVs/EBEs that much harder, and probably delay disclosure for some
      time yet. I don't share the faith of the nuts and bolts specialists
      that doggedly continuing with whatever hard evidence they can find
      will eventually yield the Rosetta Stone for understanding the UFO
      phenomenon. That I believe is what distinguishes political realism
      from religious science.

      Michael Salla
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.