By Robert L. SalasDr. 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.