It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hysteria Drives UFO Gatekeepers Debunking Exopolitics Pioneers

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:54 PM
Greetings Forumerions,

Michael Salla has returned from his trip to Spain, and some think he's on another trip:

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.

The rest of the story . . .


posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:28 PM
This seems on par with the garbage that Salla spews. The amount of spin and hypocrisy in this article is enough to boggle the mind. I don't know whether to find it laughable or appalling he would accuse Hastings and the hosts of the Paracast of being hand-in-hand with disinformation agents when Salla himself vomits disinformation on a regular basis. Salla and his followers in the Exopolitics movement are a plague in this field; Biedny and Steinberg are right to say he is an embarrassment. We would do well to run Salla and his ilk out of the field, with torches and pitchforks if necessary.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:50 PM
From the source in the OP:

It’s important to however point out that the decades long strategy of convincing UFO skeptics through hard evidence has been an abject failure. After six decades of amassing enough hard evidence to fill a small library, genuine UFO disclosure has still not happened.

Actually that's not true, there HAS been disclosure of UFOs, like the F-117 and SR-71. Anyone seeing those flying before they were declassified would correctly think they were UFOs. It seems entirely plausible that at least some of the unexplained UFO sightings could be the latest secret projects that like those, won't be disclosed until we have something better in the skunk works.

I just got through reading the Battle of LA thread on ATS, and if that was an extraterrestrial craft, it got a heck of a welcome to earth with us earthlings firing as many 3" shells as we could at it, so the first order of expolitics would be to give those guys an apology!

Actually the most likely explanation is that we started firing at a balloon then started firing at the other shells that had exploded in the air, but it really got me thinking about the possibility of intelligent life visiting us. If they were really intelligent, would they wait for us to "grow up" a bit so we don't shoot first and ask questions later? Some people seem to think that was something other than a balloon we shot at and if it was ET, they got a heck of a welcome, so Earth probably doesn't have a very good reputation in the exopolitical circles.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yes we at them

Yes we know exactly the cost of such a reprisal.

Yes we everyone has accepted the loss is marginal in comparison to our existence.

No we cannot sustain our existence if and when a full scale ever occurred.

Obviously most are still glued to earth fuels and energy topics which are supported with billions from all nations to keep the majority focussed on a non issue when it involves our species. So most members and global citizens have obviously no idea. and everyone else here is still referring to ufo topics and if they exist.....right...okay.....

Hey you, everyone does know the earth is not flat right...or am i typing to a group of monkeys here..

Reality Check...yeah...we are not alone. Get over it.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

yeah well any moron knows you dont start a vacation in a place like LA, or really any coastal city in the US... those guys are mad!

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by tristar

I agree we probably aren't alone in the universe.

I was just agreeing with the quote from the article referenced in the OP that

It’s important to however point out that the decades long strategy of convincing UFO skeptics through hard evidence has been an abject failure.

Actually UFOs exist, 95% are explainable, 5% aren't. Nobody has ever proven to the satisfaction of skeptics what the 5% unexplained really are, so the article is right in calling it an "abject failure". So even though the probability of alien existence is a near certainty IMO, the amount of evidence we have for them visiting earth is a few fuzzy videos of some dots in the sky that could be anything.

In fact, I was one of the people who believed some of the UFOs had extraterrestrial origin, until I started researching the evidence, and found out that there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. Other than the obvious hoax cases, some are really unexplained. If they are unknown craft, they could just as easily be piloted by Leprechauns who live right here on earth and make them in underground factories in Antarctica, or time travelers, as Aliens. Nobody knows or has proven what they are.

At least I can do my own experiments to prove the earth isn't flat. Contrary to popular belief, some people have known not only that the earth was round, but even how big it was, since this experiment:

One of the first people to make a very accurate measurement of the circumference of the Earth was Eratosthenes, a Greek philosopher who lived in Alexandria around 250B.C.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:56 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

2% in comparison are not.

2% equals to a ten fold our planets inhabitants, we may assume all form's of their criteria and people ASSUME we are the dominant species.

So you, us, the human species expects some form of solar "template" , in a nut shell were confined to our immediate scientific knowledge. Everything has a price, is the planet ready for such a conflict ?

Use it, don't abuse it.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:27 PM
This guy isn't looking for the truth. He thinks he already knows the truth. All he's trying to do is to force the Government to confirm his notions. Unless the Government does that, he'll never be satisfied.

Unfortunately, Salla is no more likely to have a lock on the truth than anyone else. Even if the Government comes out with full disclosure (and it may already have done that), there is almost no chance that the truth will match Salla's imagination. He's doomed to keep on hounding the Government, endlessly demanding documents, never satisfied with anything he gets.

After six decades of amassing enough hard evidence to fill a small library, genuine UFO disclosure has still not happened.

I'm not sure what he means by "hard" evidence, but to me that would be a UFO, or an alien. Anything less would be unacceptable. And by UFO, I don't mean a video or photo. I don't mean an affidavit. I mean the vehicle itself. That's hard evidence.

The rest is paper and pictures. Any fool with a computer can fabricate enough "evidence" to fill a small library, and many of them do. You simply can't rely on such "evidence", because there is no way to distinguish real from fake.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:37 PM
[My Latest Retort To Salla]


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]

The rest of the story . . .

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:38 PM
[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

The rest of the story . . .

top topics


log in