Monday, August 03, 2009

Hysteria Drives UFO Gatekeepers Debunking Exopolitics Pioneers

By Dr. Michael Salla
Honolulu Exopolitics Examiner

Dr. Michael Salla     A new breed of UFOlogist has emerged as critics of the burgeoning exopolitics movement. It’s no surprise that in the lead up and success of the world’s first Exopolitics Summit in Barcelona, Spain, that UFOlogists would increasingly perceive exopolitics as an existential threat. The existential threat, according to UFOlogists acting as gatekeepers for “legitimate UFO research,” is that exopoliticians mix reliable with unreliable UFO sources in their analyses. Indeed, this mixing of reliable and unreliable sources leads to a special form of hysteria among gatekeepers of legitimate UFO research. Existential hysteria leads to UFOlogical gatekeepers claiming in all seriousness that exopolitics has become the main obstacle to genuine UFO disclosure. The reality is that after six decades of earnest activity, UFOlogy has failed to take humanity to the promised land of genuine government disclosure of UFOs, and a new set of pioneers have stepped in to light the way. These exopolitical pioneers believe that a nuanced consideration of ALL evidentiary sources and related political processes will expose the truth behind the extraterrestrial hypothesis – that some UFOs are interplanetary in origin. . . .

. . . Special mention should be made of modern UFO gatekeepers who are most vocal in perpetuating the existential hysteria over the exopolitics discipline. Special note should go to Robert Hastings, author of UFOs and Nukes, who excels in hysterical overreaction when it comes to the use of sources he declares unreliable. David Biedny and Gene Steinberg, hosts of Paracast Radio have consistently shown an astounding lack of intellectual honesty in declaring which sources or witnesses they find reliable or not. For example, they had image expert Jim Dilettoso appear as guest who promptly revealed that 40 of the earliest Billy Meier photos were real, and that models were then created for hoaxed photos for comparative purposes. Totally ignoring this very important information, Biedny and Steinberg go on to declare that the Billy Meier photos are fraudulent based on their analysis of later hoaxed photos. Finally, small mention should also be made of retired Air Force Captain Robert Salas who in a moment of poor judgment deigned to join the existential hysteria created by Hastings, Biedny and Steinberg, and penned an article attacking exopolitics pioneers who had the temerity to support his work while also supporting those he deems unreliable. . . .


  1. 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. My recent article was not done in a moment of poor judgment. 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.

  2. Michael,

    Oh my! Where to start . . . let’s begin by “correcting” your statement about “a new breed of Ufologist” emerging; the Ufologists whom you cite towards the end of your piece, with the exception of “David Biedny” have been in the field for decades! Trying to “paint them” as “new or emerging” is erroneous and deceptive, to be polite.

    Moreover, you also gave the a fore mentioned gentlemen the title of “The Gatekeepers of Ufology,” again attempting to conjure some notion of a Machiavellian, diabolical control over Ufology by competent, intelligent researchers and or witnesses—that quite frankly is utter nonsense!

    Additionally, as part of your “stage,” you employ the noun” hysteria,” vis–à–vis the criticism aimed at you and exopolitics, while at the same time dishing out your own brand of condemnation . . . by your own definition, does this mean you’re hysterical?!

    To your credit, you did “correctly” name one of the grievances against you and exopolitics, i.e., “exopoliticians mix reliable with unreliable UFO sources in their analyses.” This particular article appears to be your admission to this fact, and if you don’t see the fallibility with this detail, then that merely compounds the issue.

    Also in your article, you erroneously connect “Emergency War Plan” documents to Ufology—there is not one shred of evidence that bridges the documents to the phenomenon. This is inherent to poor research, which brings us to the “original” starting point.

    What you refer to as “hysteria” was in fact the outrage expressed by many for your last article via the Examiner “endorsing known criminal, “Bill Knell.” Not only did you lend credence to his lies about Walter Cronkite, without doing any research or investigation, you also inadvertently aided him in his criminal endeavors by sending traffic to his web-site. This behavior of course was/is excusable initially, as you obviously weren’t aware of Knell and his nefarious ways; however, after being enlightened about him by myself and others, and to continue to sanction Knell’s lies as well as linking to his site, is akin to aiding and abetting in my view. As I told you privately, regardless of one’s view on exopolitics, this behavior of yours has done irreparable harm to your character, and by default—your cause, i.e., exopolitics.

    Finally, inserting the addendum about Knell, (in your previous article which precipitated Salas’ piece and yours) being an “intelligence operative” (absolute twaddle concluded by research you did overnight) only adds salt to the wound and simply strengthens the censure against you and exopolitics.

    Frank Warren

  3. Robert Hastings writes:

    The new Research paradigm, as espoused by Dr. Salla:

    In conversation with The Washington Post, Salla pointed to evidence widely available on the Internet as a source for his research on extraterrestrial visitation: "There's a lot of stuff on the Internet, and I just went around and pieced it together."

    (Source: Carlson, Peter. "Ike and the Alien Ambassadors". The Washington Post. February 19, 2004.)

    RH: Wonderful scholarship, Dr. Salla. You really are a pioneer! Humans of the future will owe you a debt of gratitude for pointing the way!

    Has anyone read Mrs. Salla's Exopolitics bio? It's at:

    An excerpt: "A telepathic communicator with angelic, extraterrestrial, astral and other multi-dimensional entities, Angelika Whitecliff is a natural clairvoyant and has conducted private consultations for well over a decade...In the past five years, Angelika has been called by the cetaceans of Hawaii and the humpback whales of the Caribbean to actively swim and forge a relationship of interspecies communication, DNA activation and mutually beneficial interactions regarding Gaia's and humanities [sic] shifting galactic consciousness."

    Now that's a résumé!

    An imagined conversation at the Salla house, over dinner:

    The Doktor: "I'm worried. My high-level, inside sources on the Internet are saying that the Reptilians are making a power-play to unseat the Nordic aliens as our guardians. I fear that we Earthlings are in for more trouble. I sure miss the old, peaceful Space Brothers era of the 1950s."

    The Missus: "Not to worry. My humpback whale sources say that all will be well if we just band together and hold hands, uh, flippers, and think positive thoughts."

    (Oops, I think I'm being hysterical again.)

    --Robert Hastings

  4. Michael,

    You wrote:

    “Warren wants us all to believe that somehow I'm promoting criminal activities [of Bill Knell] by citing even with appropriate caveats, unreliable sources, etc.”

    When you published your previous article endorsing Knell’s lies about Walter Cronkite and “linking to his site,” I contacted you “immediately” and informed you of Knell’s nefarious ways; I told you that Knell uses the internet as a tool to defraud people, and many of the victims are people you know, i.e., Ufologists who are having their copyrights infringed upon by Knell pirating their work; not to mention the victims on the other side of the coin that are buying fraudulent goods. I offered up any and all evidence for you to peruse, and vehemently urged to remove the article—you did not!

    A couple of days later after getting hammered by so many people enlightening you about Knell’s devious character—that is when you inserted the disclaimer. Still, leaving the notion that there might be truth to the Cronkite fiction as espoused by the liar Knell. Also you left the link to his site intact, and it still is at this time—the damage was done!

    Just the day after you published your article, if you Googled it, there was a “couple of hundred hits” either linking to your site, and or publishing your article in toto or partially! Today there is almost 2000 hits of the same—all with the trail leading to Knell’s web-site! (He acknowledged his appreciation by dramatically increasing the numbers of DVDs he has for sale!)

    Just like the ad revenue generated by anything you pen, which The Examiner pays you a percentage of, the more traffic to the article, the more revenue it brings in—the same mathematical principles apply to Knell’s criminal endeavors, and I state this more as an exercise, as one doesn’t need to be a “PHD” to deduce this! The more traffic you send to his site, the more people he will hoodwink—period! So yes, by leaving the article in question, in place—you are aiding and abetting a known criminal! Again, I ask you to remove it in its entirety.

    You wrote:

    “These kinds of hysterical emotional responses do not engage with my key criticism raised in the above paper . . .”

    I would ask any reader to review my comments on your previous article, as well as this one and let them decide if my comments seemed “hysterical” in any way. I have been “clear and to the point,” and presented my arguments to you in a respectful manner—as always!

    To label your critics, as “hysterical,” aside from being imprudent, is indicative of your weak position, and is an exemplar of hypocrisy. Moreover, in my retort I explained what precipitated your article, as well as Bob Salas piece i.e., I was addressing the “core” of the matter.

    [See Part 2]

  5. [Part 2]

    You wrote:

    “Mr Warren says that the CJS documents I cite have nothing to do with the ET question. Really? Where's the evidence for a project Majestic in 1952 that had purely military and non-UFO/ET purposes?”

    Your kidding, right!? The burden of proof falls on you Michael. You are the one spreading this nonsense without one iota of proof!

    In the space of two articles you initially herald the narrative of a known criminal and conman, without doing any investigation or due diligence, while simultaneously sending lambs to the slaughter by linking to the criminal’s site; in giving an inkling of credence to Knell’s nonsense re Cronkite, you assisted in sullying this great man’s name. To add salt to the wound, after having dozens of people “enlighten” you to Knell’s nefarious character, overnight you come back to state, “ . . . I have to conclude that Knell is part of an intelligence program . . ..” This is utter poppycock, and demonstrates your poor research skills and gives one pause to your aptitude, or more accurately—inaptitude!

    Accordingly, to further exhibit a pattern, you then attempt to associate “authentic previously classified documents” to the UFO phenomenon simply because the word “Majestic” was found in them, which was a code-name then for the project in question; to date there is not one shred of evidence supporting any collusion
    between the docs and Ufology! If you have any—please share!

    Finally, my involvement in this dialogue, both here and at the site of your previous article, as well as private e-mail was to “warn a colleague” about the lies of the criminal he was endorsing, and to prevent any more harm done to citizens via Knell from simply removing the article, which is what I naturally expected to happen after you were informed of the details.

    Ironically, the others, you’ve cited, Hastings, Salas, Biedny and Steinberg, who have broadened their criticism of you and exopolitics (above and beyond the Knell issue) you have provided ample evidence for their thesis in the span of these last two articles . . . and that in one sense is “hysterical!”

    Frank Warren


Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW


Mutual UFO Network Logo