Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Exopolitics and Robert L. Salas

I often see interesting stuff posted on other sites and I sometimes ask for permission to reprint (as others ask me). This came from The UFO Chronicles (www.theufochronicles.com) and was written by Robert Salas, not to be confused with Dr. Salla and his Exopolitics site. Don’t expect me to be invited to speak there any time soon. Thanks to both Frank Warren of The UFO Chronicles and to Robert Salas for permission to reprint.

Exopolitics, By Its Current Methods is Doing More Harm Than Good...
By Robert L. Salas
Dr. Salla seems to be saying that we should take in and analyze all input from every source in order to fully understand both the scientific and social aspects of the phenomenon. First, I don't know how that is possible and I don't understand what he means by 'flexible social scientific techniques.' Does he mean accepting questionable witness testimony or documentation and using it to conjecture about a possible event? That seems to be what he has done with his Exopolitics Journal Article (July 1, 2009) - Kennedy's Deadly Confrontation with the CIA & MJ-12.
In this 'research article' he links Kennedy's death with his fight with the CIA over UFO information. I do not claim that this is false or true but I reject the approach to drawing such a conclusion or implying such a conclusion through these 'flexible social scientific techniques.' This is the kind of output from Exopolitics that I find objectionable because it creates fodder for those who would denigrate the UFO phenomenon.
I admit I had to look up the word existential in order to try and understand what he meant by his accusation of 'existential hysteria.' The American Heritage Dictionary (1982 edition) defines existentialism as: "A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts." While I would not necessarily associate myself with the first part of this definition, I do accept the concept that we have freedom of choice and are responsible for the consequences of our acts. I am normally not hysterical about that but I suppose I could be driven to hysteria under the right circumstances.
When I wrote my recent article criticizing Exopolitics I did not do it in a moment of poor judgment. Soon after the 2007 Exopolitics Conference, I contacted Dr. Salla by phone and in writing to express my disappointment with the Exopolitics movement and to emphasize that I no longer wanted to be associated with his group. I essentially gave him the same reasons then as I have done here.
In those two years, I have not changed my opinion that Exopolitics, by its current methods is doing more harm than good in the effort toward disclosure. I thought about it a long time before deciding that a public critique of Exopolitics was in order.
I am certainly not insisting on 'strict scientific filtering mechanisms for witnesses and sources.' No one has any control over what people will say or what they will present as evidence. What I do ask is that each of us be responsible for what we present as fact, fiction or other when we make public statements about the phenomenon.
In taking personal responsibility for improving the viability of the study of this phenomenon, we are all 'Ufological gatekeepers.'Nowhere in my dictionary did I find a definition for Exopolitics. I did find a definition for Exobiology. It states, "1. A branch of biology that deals with the search for and study of extraterrestrial living organisms." Dr. Salla; unless you have access to an ET life form, what gives you the credentials to elaborate on the political implications of dealing with such life forms? Certainly, as many have done before you, you can speculate about what political implications disclosure would have on the world.
If you are talking about human politics surrounding the phenomenon, then you are dealing with assumptions and speculations. Is that what you mean by a nuanced approach to the truth of ETH? Walk into any bar in the world and you will hear that kind of 'nuanced approach' to the truth.

Salas contributed more thoughts to all this at the same The UFO Chronicles web site. Here he writes specifically about the Disclosure Project, which to some sounds good, but to others seems to be little more than smoke from some distant fire.

The so-called Disclosure Project apparently has the same objective as Gary McKinnon had when he, reportedly ‘broke-into’ some government computer files—to discover what the government knows about the UFO phenomenon. Both efforts have been met with frustration and disappointment.

Stephen Bassett’s (or Steven Greer’s depending on which one is talking) Disclosure Project has been ineffectually trying to penetrate that door of secrecy since 2001. They have presumably tried to achieve disclosure by enticing speakers (myself among them) to tell as many stories, theories, philosophies, reports, and conjectures as possible during these conferences. I say presumably because these pointless exercises have been so ineffective in gaining serious public attention that one might conclude they were intentionally designed to keep disclosure from happening.

They seem to have achieved one probable objective of those who would maintain the secrecy, i.e., "to keep the public confused and unsure about the subject." The hallmark of these Exopolitics Conferences is generally unsupported statements and conjecture – lots of conjecture.The mainstream media has not gotten on the bandwagon because there is little substance to talk about. The public is not clamoring for action because they simply don’t know what or who to believe and take the path of least resistance, i.e., indifference. As long as the UFO phenomenon is defined by confusion and conjecture, there will be nothing specific to demand of our government. Note there is no hue and cry for a march on Washington demanding that disclosure happen now. Even though I do not agree with his methods, at least McKinnon tried to take the most direct path to the truth. The Exopolitics groupies are simply hurling whatever they can get their hands on in every direction. I too believe disclosure of the truth of the UFO phenomenon is important. If even a small percentage of the stories are true, it should be THE most important story ever. It cries out for a federal investigation. But we find ourselves with the following ‘estimate of the situation’:

First, those who would keep disclosure from happening have done a masterful job of keeping the public dis-informed and confused on the subject. That effort has no doubt been aided by well-placed agents acting as interested parties but really promoting ineffectual activities or encouraging true advocates to bicker among themselves or act in disunity. In addition, government agencies, like the USAF, who probably have a substantial amount of information, have showed an intense indifference to the subject, furthering the perception that there is nothing of interest to be investigated.

Second, whenever claims are made or ‘witness’ reports without credible substantiation are presented, damage is done to the credibility of the phenomenon as a whole. Claims, such as Greer’s ‘free energy’ fantasy, the controversy of the MJ-12 documents, underground alien bases have only served to provide more grist for ridicule. There seems to have evolved a culture where certain individuals or groups compete to be identified with having insider information or some special contacts with the aliens themselves or who are making a living telling good stories at UFO Conferences. That culture can only be detrimental to the objective of disclosure.


Although the stated objectives of groups like Exopolitics profess the need for government disclosure, the result has appeared to be an eagerness to relate and support every wild-eyed story or speculation about the ET presence that anyone might come up with. An example of that occurred recently when Dr. Michael Salla wrote an article on his website for his Exopolitics Examiner extolling a supposed spectacular sighting by Walter Cronkite around a naval missile launch. After, a number of readers took exception to the truthfulness of the stories originator, he had to file a retraction and admit there was serious doubt to the story.
Another example is Dr. Steven Greer, in 2007, when he announced to an audience that he had held an Alien baby in his arms and promised to present proof. Two years later, we are still waiting for that proof. There have been many other examples of individuals in the Exopolitics Group simply trying to promote their own notoriety.
The public study of this phenomenon has evolved into a kind of game; the Ufology game. What is the purpose of this game? Is it to get as many people to play as you can? Do we simply want a meandering mix of fact and fiction out there to titillate curiosity?It is time we worked smarter toward the disclosure objective. We need to stop entertaining the public and simply inform the public as to the valid history of the phenomenon and the facts of particular cases. By ‘we’, I mean each of us who have something to contribute or has an audience to speak to about the subject. We simply need to be responsible. We need to state clearly when we are relating substantiated fact and when we are simply speculating. If we want scientists to take a serious interest, we have to present our cases as scientifically as we can. I have always been open to any critique of my own case (Malmstrom AFB, 1967) and to answering any question about what I present. I believe my incident has been supported and substantiated by multiple witnesses and documentation.
There are many other such valid cases. These are the ones that should be the center of exposure in trying to focus media and public attention to the phenomenon. There are many conscientious researchers out there who have worked hard to validate incidents. There is much to present to a new Congressional Hearing by witnesses and documents that could provide compelling evidence of the truth of the phenomenon. Let us focus on that and decry those who would keep the phenomenon the subject of ridicule.

7 comments:

ninni said...

Ufology game. What is the purpose of this game? seriously, its for everyone. and really we talk About a Game

but also all the history (of mankind)

cda said...

Robert L.Salas is in effect saying that while he disapproves of the methodology of Dr Greer, Michael Salla & Stephen Bassett he still believes there should be some official 'disclosure' by the US government. What exactly would he like them (and the umpteen other governments of the civilised world) to disclose? 'Disclosure' means only one thing in the eyes of ufologists: 'Disclosure of ET presence', doesn't it? That may well happen one day - but only when the ETs are genuinely present.

fengfk2008 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
starman said...

"...but only when the ETs are genuinely present."

Lol, if 62 years of credible witness testimony can't convince you, nothing can. If a saucer with its crew landed in front of you, you still wouldn't believe it.

Jerry Clark said...

Yes, Christopher Allan demands strict orthodoxy not only of himself but of all others, as all his voluminous comments in this section of Kevin's blog voluminously document. He knows exactly what UFOs aren't, which must provide him with much undisturbed sleep. With heresy nowhere to be entertained, his thoughts happily walk the straight and narrow path, whistling a pleasant tune. You almost envy the guy his blissful condition. Almost.

Bob Koford said...

In reference to "...only when the ETs are genuinely present":

It IS a true statement in the context of the fact that no one can prove WHO "they" are, ET or otherwise.

But...that facts remain clear:

1. The encounters between our interceptors, and "them" were documented completely by the military and Intelligence agencies, especially for the years between 1951, and 1953.

2. The evasive actions by "them", and of course the fact that interceptors were vectored to them at all, clearly demonstrates that "they" were not our own, i.e., some Top Secret program. We just wouldn't waste all of the money, time, and man power to do it, and we continued to do it for several more years.

3. Since only designated "foes" would react the way they did, they must be thought of in this light.

4. Any foe would need to be operating from some type of home base, whether it be an Aircraft carrier, or some land base. Since many of these objects were seen to exit straight up, presumably into outer space, as some of the pilots described, what options are left, or rather, why wouldn't Extra, or Non Terrestrial be a viable option to consider, given these well documented facts?

starman said...

"...no one can prove WHO they are.."

No LAYMEN that is. :)The government is, I think, in a much better position....As for identity and origins, two things are clear. The phenomenon represents intelligence; UFOs are under intelligent control. But they are obviously far more capable in various ways than any Earthly technology. They must be from an advanced, extraterrestrial civilization.