Phillip Corso and the National Security Council - Part II Aloha, here's the second round of responses concerning a dialogue I am having on the UFO Updates forum concerning Col Phillip Corso.
The original posts for this second round is available CLICK HERE The dialogue is based on an earlier posting of mine also available that mentioned Col Corso and led to the exchange CLICK HERE For a summary of the first round of this dialogue CLICK HERE In short, you see in this dialogue resistance to the testimony of whistleblowers such as Col Philip Corso who have solid credentials but have minor inconsistencies in their testimonies highlighted by established UFO researchers. In this dialogue the issue at dispute is whether Corso served as a staff member of the National Security Council as he claimed, or basically served on an `independent agency' and therefore `lied'. My protagonist in this dialogue is Brad Sparks, a co-founder of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy. You can judge for yourself the complexities of the issues and whether I or Sparks are more accurate in our respective positions concerning Col Corso's claim of having served as a staff member on the National Security Council. Corso's credibility is important for his subsequent claims of having served in a covert project at the Foreign Technology Desk of Army Research and Development where he disseminated extaterrestrial technologies into private industry. I've inserted the abbreviations BS [Brad Sparks] and MS [Michael Salla] into the original so you can more easily follow the dialogue though for the correct sequencing of posts you will need to read the original which is cited above. In peace, Michael E. Salla, PhD ************** >>>>>>>Source<<<<<< [MS] Certainly, Cutler was clear about the role played by the "NSC Operations Coordinating Board." Cutler viewed it as integral part of the NSC system and part of the NSC itself ^Å [BS] Cutler viewed the OCB in his retrospective history as he left it and the NSC in 1958 when he resigned as Special Assistant to the President for National Security. By 1958 the OCB had been merged into the NSC whereas before July 1, 1957, the OCB had functioned as an "independent agency" like the CIA was an "independent agency." CIA employees do not get to put "NSC Staff member" on their resume's!!! [MS] EO 10483 establishing the OCB in 1953 certainly referred to the OCB as an "independent agency" but functionally it was part of the NSC created to coordinate efforts between different government agencies and military departments for a coordinated National Security policy which was why the NSC was created in 1947. [BS] The CIA was also an 'independent agency' created with the NSC in the same law in 1947 (National Security Act) to "coordinate efforts between different government agencies" for the NSC and it directly reported to the NSC. Yet the CIA was never a part of the NSC. CIA employees do not get to lie on their resume's and say "NSC Staff member"! [MS]Your 'revised' history of the CIA is wrong. Here is what the 1947 National Security Act says about the chief functions of the CIA: [BS]Your history is "wrong" and you are misleading readers of this list with the current 2005 version of the National Security Act rather than the 1947 version that was relevant to the time period in the 50's under discussion. The CIA "functionally" reported to the NSC and functionally "coordinated" matters just like the OCB did, yet CIA employees and managers did not get to lie on their resume's like Corso and claim they worked on the prestigious high-level "NSC Staff." [MS] [I] do not see how citing the current version of the National Security Act somehow misleads members since amendments can be identified. If you have something to add to the evolution of the National Security Act concering the creation of the CIA that helps clarify your argument, then please go ahead. I find your style reminiscent of a high debate where there's a premium on scoring points to impress an audience rather than a sincere analysis of the topic at hand which is Col Phillip Corso's contention of having served as a staff member to the NSC. Since you demonstrate no intent to abandon your argument that Corso lied about being a staff member to the NSC, let me summarize the independent evidence that conclusively demonstrates that Corso was certainly not lying when associating the OCB with the NSC and describing himself as a staff member of the NSC. There are a number of independent sources supporting Corso's contention of having served as a staff member to the NSC. First there's the FBI report on Corso. In a Nov 2, 1965 letter to Mr Deloach (Hoover's Special Assistant) by M.A. Jones, describes Corso's background as follows: "Operations Coordinating Board (OCB), National Security Council." You have consistenly refused to acknowledge the significance of this FBI report which is independent confirmation that Corso's service on the OCB during the years 1953-56 was well understood by his contemporaries as part of the NSC. Your attempts at historical revisionism based on a rigid reading of the EO that formally put it in the NSC (EO 10700) does not negate this reference which clearly shows that service on the OCB prior to EO 10700 was widely understood to have been part of the NSC. As I have said before, the political culture of Corso's contemporaries understood that the OCB was part of the NSC and that Corso was not out of line in claiming to be an NSC staff member. Second there is the Senate Select Committee on POWs that refers to Corso as having served as a staff member to the NSC. This is what it says: "Lt. Col. Phillip Corso (USA, Ret.), of the National Security Council staff under President Eisenhower." While you and others contend that the Senate Committee simply accepted the bio handed to them by Corso, it serves as another clear reminder that Corso's service on the OCB was understood by his contemporaries as an agency strongly associated with the NSC. While the nature of this association evolved up to EO 10700, the association was always clear and accepted by Corso's contemporaries. Why would a prestigious serviceman such as Corso go before a Senate Select Committee and state a bold faced lie if it could be easily demonstrated that the OCB was never part of the NSC as you contend? No one challenged Corso's claim to having served on the NSC simply because it was accepted by his peers that service on the OCB qualified as service to the NSC regardless of its legal evolution from 1953-1957. Finally, we have Robert Cutler description of the OCB over the years 1953-58 in which it served on it as Eisenhower's Special Advisor where he clearly stated how it was (first functionally and then by EO) part of the NSC. This is what Cutler said: "Under President Eisenhower, the normal procedure for operating the policy-making aspects of the NSC mechanism has involved three main steps. ... Finally, the President approves, modifies, or rejects the Council's recommendations, transmits those policies which he approves to the departments and agencies responsible for planning their execution, and-as a rule where international affairs are concerned-requests the NSC Operations Coordinating Board to assist these departments and agencies in coordinating their respective planning for action under the approved policies.... During the period 1953-1958, with which I am familiar, the great bulk of national security policy determinations were made by the President through the operations of the NSC mechanism just described." The first thing to note is Cutler's description of the "NSC Operations Coordinating Board". Earlier in this thread you claim that Cutler was giving a retrospective history. That is a fallacious argument since Cutler clearly is describing the NSC mechanism from 1953-58 and clearly identifies the OCB role in that. That period includes Corso's service and clearly points out that the OCB was informally part of the NSC prior to its formal incorporation in 1957. That's three strikes against your rigid argument that the OCB was not part of the NSC during Corso's service, and therefore Corso was lying. Rather than seek to distract mine and the list's attention to red herrings such as whether CIA members could equally claim to be NSC staff members, I assert that each of these three sources offers independent corroboration of Corso's claim of being a staff member of the NSC by virtue of his assignment to the OCB. You have offerred no example of an independent official or record claiming that Corso lied with regard to his claim of being a staff member of the NSC by virtue of his assignment to the OCB. Even the FBI which clearly was seeking to prevent Corso from being appointed as a staffer to a Senate Committee in the mid 1960s acknowledged his service on the NSC OCB. You have offered nothing to support your argument and ignore the independent evidence that back ups Corso. I think you need to abandon defense of an argument based solely on a very rigid historical argument that may earn a B+ in a graduate history class but fails to properly deal with the above three independent sources of evidence clearly back up demonstrate. Calling someone a liar is clearly an extraordinary claim that requires solid evidence. The evidence you have provided in terms of citing EO 10700 merely adds a level of complexity to the history of the OCB but does not prove your point. Your argument is weak and an example of historical revisionism that is deeply biased. Your claim that Corso is a liar is a very strong claim supported by a weak historical argument that overlooks a host of contrary evidence. Essentially, you have provided a weak argument to support a strong claim. In that sense, your effort to dismiss Corso's credibility is a failure. In conclusion, I've clearly made my point that Corso's service on the OCB and its association with the NSC entitled him to make the claim that he was a staff member of the NSC. In that sense, Corso's testimony is consistent with the historical record and his credibility is intact. I have contended that the association between independent agencies such as the OCB are much more fluid than you suggest by your rigid argument. The above three sources support my argument that the OCB was functionally part of the NSC in the years 1953-56 and that Corso's peers understood that quite well. Corso statements concerning his assignment as a staffer to the NSC bolsters his credibility as a whistleblower and should not in any way by any membership. I will now offer some brief responses to what you say below. [BS]Here is what the National Security Act of 1947 actually stated in 1947 and through the 50's, the time period that is actually relevant to Corso's lies about purportedly working as an "NSC Staff" member in 1954-6: --- SEC. 102(a) There is hereby established UNDER the National Security Council [NSC] a Central Intelligence Agency [CIA].... 102(d) For the purpose of COORDINATING the intelligence activities of the several Government departments and agencies in the interest of national security, it shall be the duty of the Agency [CIA], UNDER the DIRECTION of the National Security Council [NSC]-- (1) to advise the National Security Council.... (2) to make recommendations to the National Security Council for the COORDINATION of such intelligence activities.... (5) to perform such other functions and duties ... as the National Security Council may from time to time direct. --- [MS] Let me remind the list that you first raised the issue of the CIA to make the contentious point that CIA staff members had as much right as Operations Coordinating Board (OCB) staff members to claim to be staff members of the NSC. I initially pointed out that the CIA was a statutory agency passed by Congress, while the OCB was an agency created by Executive Order and therefore not a statutory agency with the power to issue regulations that had to be enforced. This meant that the OCB was clearly dependent on the President and the NSC which created it to have its recommendations carried out. Cutler describes the OCB as part of how NSC mechanism operated. In contrast, the CIA had significantly more autonomy due to it being created by statute and therefore having the statutory authority to pass regulations that Federal authority. Furthermore, the CIA had as its primary function assisting the DCI. Consequently, it is mistaken to equate the CIA and the OCB despite the latter's designation as an independent agency that reports to the NSC. That was my point but it seems you are intent on demonstrating that a staff member of the CIA during the years 1953-1956 had as much right as Corso to claim to be a staff member to the NSC. That's a moot point since the issue at hand is Corso's reference to being part of the NSC. As far as the original 1947 NSC Act is concerned in terms of the relationship between the CIA and the DCI, the pertinent section which you don't include in the above is what follows: Sec. 403-1. Central Intelligence Agency There is a Central Intelligence Agency. The function of the Agency shall be to assist the Director of Central Intelligence in carrying out the responsibilities referred to in paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 403-3(d) of this title. -SOURCE- (July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title I, Sec. 102A, as added Pub. L. 104-293, title VIII, Sec. 805(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3479.) So the CIA clearly had as its chief function assisting the DCI in the performance of a range of duties some of which involved reporting to the NSC as the paragraphs you cite above point out. This does makes it clear that the above sections you cited were not the exclusive function of the CIA. [BS]So the CIA does "report" to the NSC and "coordinate" matters for the NSC in the relevant 50's time frame, just like the OCB where Corso worked in 1954-6. Yet CIA staff do not get to lie like Corso on their resume's and claim they worked for the higher-ranking impressive-sounding NSC. [MS] Again, comparing the CIA and the NCB is like comparing apples and oranges since one was created by statute and the other by EO. They had differing degrees of autonomy, power and functions as far as the NSC is concerned. There is no mention of the CIA reporting to the NSC in the previous paragraphs which stipulate that the CIA was created to serve the Director of the Central Intelligence as the head of all the intelligence community comprising the intelligence services of the various military departments and government agencies. There was no statutory requirement for the CIA to report to the NSC. That is a fiction you have created to support your fallacious reasoning. [BS]As the Nat Sec Act actually stated in the 50's, as I quoted above, the CIA does "report" to and serves directly "under" the NSC and it does "coordinate" matters for the NSC in the relevant 50's time frame, just like the OCB where Corso worked in 1954-6. Yet CIA personnel do not get to lie like Corso on their resume's and claim they worked for the high-level impressive-sounding NSC. [MS] As I have claimed, the CIA is a statutory body while the OCB was an independent agency created by Executive Authority. You are comparing oranges and apples here. [BS] Your ignorance of basic national security history and structure is as astounding as it is appalling. Yours is the "fiction" that is totally "wrong," as apparently you are incapable of distinguishing between what the National Security Act of 1947 originally stated and how it read _in the 50's_ the time period that is relevant to this thread rather than how it reads today in 2005. Or else you know exactly what you are doing by foisting the 2005 version of the law on us knowing full well that it has been reworded by numerous revisions especially since 9-11, that the version as it stood in the 50's completely verifies what I said, and you thought you could just get away with a fast one and snow people by making it look complicated, when it is very simple. [MS] Your use of hyperbole demonstrates may earn you points in a high school debating program but doesn't help in investigating Corso's claims and the OCB. The history of the CIA is really a distraction from the core issue which is the status of the OCB, not the CIA. I do not know of any CIA employee claiming that s/he is an NSC member by virtue of serving on the CIA in the period at question. That's a hypothetical situation that you have raised which is best a distraction. Well the answer may come from one of the Majestic Documents where the First Annual Report of the Majestic Twelve Project states that "MAJ-Com-1 with assistance of the Panel [Majestic 12 Group] persuades the President to establish the Psychological Strategy Board on 4 April 1951" (Majestic Documents, ed. R & R. Woods, p. 114). So why would Majestic 12 recommend the creation of the PSB and have it housed in the State Department rather than the Old Executive Office building with other NSC committees? My guess is that MJ-12 was created as an independent agency as recommended by Truman's leaked memo of Sept 24, 1947 and an alleged Presidential Directive of 26 September that established the MJ-12 group according to the "First Annual Report". In order to maximize secrecy, MJ-12 was likely formally independent but functionally was at the apex of the NSC when it came to issues associated with UFOs and the ETH. My guess is that if we pursue the control and genesis of the PSB and the OCB we end up with a clearer picture of how MJ-12 was run and its links with the NSC. [BS] It is typical that you use "guesswork" based on preposterous and ridiculous forged documents such as the MJ-12 "1st" Annual Report that is so laughably bad that it can't even keep the numbering of the alleged (bogus) "annual reports" straight, as the "1st" annual report should be in 1948, not in late 1952 (the latest date of the forged contents within the report). [MS] I don't see why refering to Majestic Documents reference to the Psychological Strategy Board as created by the Majestic-12 committee is preposterous. We have a leaked document with contested authenicity that refers to the creation of the forerunner to the OCB. I think it is an interesting connection to explore given Corso's service on the OCB. [BS] What ridiculous hogwash you recite as if it was authoritative official records. This bogus MJ-12 "1st" Annual Report refers to agencies that did not even exist yet in 1947 or 1952 as carrying out such things as Roswell-related "radiation monitoring flights" in NM in 1947 supposedly done by "AFTAC" an agency that was not even created until 1959! This is just what a 90's era lazy hoaxer who had no real knowledge or understanding of intelligence history or military history, or to do any historical research, might throw together, not realizing or caring that agencies existing in the 90's (like AFTAC) did not exist with the same name - or exist at all back in the time being invented for the MJ- 12 hoax documents. Likewise the ignoramus hoaxer of the MJ-12 "1st" Annual Report screwed up on the claim that the "Armed Forces Security Agency" (AFSA, NSA's predecessor) had "First Five Years" of its intelligence activities to digest and report (in 1952). But AFSA did not exist in 1947 or 1948. AFSA was created by JCS Directive in 1949. That's 3 years not 5 years. The dumbbell hoaxer of the MJ-12 "1st" Annual Report also recklessly threw in the kitchen sink as to the scope of the AFSA's alleged intelligence activities (on UFO's of course), making it into some kind of superspy Gestapo agency while not knowing what he was talking about in tossing around confused mumbo-jumbo terminology. He claims that AFSA had 5 years of "Signals, Radar, Communications and Human Intelligence Operations in the First Five Years." In fact AFSA was another highly ineffectual agency, which required replacement by the NSA, and its only intelligence activity was Communications Intelligence (COMINT, and did not have Radar or Human Intelligence (RADINT and HUMINT) operations. The hoaxer was so stupid he didn't even know the difference between these categories, as Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) includes COMINT and you don't list both of them together as if separate and different. [MS] What you say above is moot and is more appropriately discussed in a new thread. [BS] This is double-talk and you know it! You've been caught cold, dude! Admit it. Corso inflated his resume' with a non-existent "NSC Staff" service when his military records prove he merely served on the OCB. ^Å All that double-talk is belied by the fact that William H. Jackson in 1956 had to conduct a study as to why the OCB was not functioning effectively. The reason was simple: The OCB did not have the authority of the NSC and the President behind it! The OCB was not a part of the NSC so its suggestions for "coordination" were ignored by the national security agencies and departments. The concept of OCB getting "voluntary cooperation" was not working because OCB had no NSC power to enforce. It's a simple concept which any poli sci professor should be able to grasp instantly. [MS] This merely proves my point that functionally it was clear that the OCB was part of the NSC [BS]That's pure double-talk! Jackson's report as approved by Eisenhower proves that the OCB was _not_ functioning as part of the NSC and that it needed to be. You think you can twist any fact of history around to its exact opposite meaning and get away with it, but you're wrong, you're not going to get away with it. [MS] This again is incorrect. You ignore what Robert Cutler said concerning how the OCB operated as part of the NSC mechanism. He was merely giving a factual description of the OCB's activities and how it worked with the NSC during the years 1953-58. It was clear that the NSC mechanism appeared to function appropriately and that there was more at play than merely giving the OCB more institutional clout since it's clear from what Cutler said that it was already part of the NSC mechanism so the NSC was the real power behind the OCB. You conveniently ignore this with your citation of Jackson's reform making it appear that the OCB was just an agency with no real authority. That's nonsense, the NSC was always behind the OCB as is clear from its establishing EO and Cutler's description of it. [BS] Then you have the nerve to quote Jackson saying and confirming exactly the same thing I have said (below) but act like it somehow supports you. It does not. [MS] and that's where it belonged rather than being housed in the Department of State. Jackson was on the record in 1954 for strengthening the OCB by statutes that would formally put it in the NSC. [BS] As you now admit the OCB was not "in the NSC" in 1954 when Corso was on staff with OCB, and that one idea was to put the OCB into the NSC "by statutes" because of the fact it was not then part of the NSC. Jackson did not say "formally" put into the NSC, as if somehow the OCB was already "informally" part of the NSC already. You slipped that word "formally" in. If the OCB was already informally functioning as part of the NSC it would not have had problems getting its coordination plans enforced among the departments and agencies of the government by "voluntary cooperation." OCB lacked the NSC's clout because it was not part of the NSC and Jackson sought to rectify that by merging the OCB into the NSC, as much as you wish to nullify that fact of history behind Eisenhower's Executive Order 10700 merging the OCB into the NSC on July 1, 1957, a year after Corso had departed the paper- tiger ineffectual OCB. [MS] This is nonsense as Cutler's description of the OCB makes clear. It was part of the NSC system from 1953-58 when he served on it. The OCB was informally part of the NSC, and the NSC was the final authority behind OCB policies. Again, you ignore the evidence that is contrary to your argument. [BS] The OCB was not functioning "informally," de facto ("as a fact" or in practical day-to-day reality) as part of the NSC -- if it did it would have had the "de facto" day-to-day practical reality of the power of the NSC, but it did not, it was an ineffectual paper tiger paper-pushing org, and that's why Jackson had to seek to get OCB merged into the NSC in 1957. Nor was the OCB structured "formally" de jure on the org charts as part of the NSC as you even are forced now to admit. Jackson wanted the OCB merged with the NSC so it would finally have NSC's backing and authority automatically. [MS] Again let me repeat what Robert Cutler, Eisenhower's Special Assistant said about the OCB: "Under President Eisenhower, the normal procedure for operating the policy-making aspects of the NSC mechanism has involved three main steps. ... Finally, the President approves, modifies, or rejects the Council's recommendations, transmits those policies which he approves to the departments and agencies responsible for planning their execution, and-as a rule where international affairs are concerned-requests the NSC Operations Coordinating Board to assist these departments and agencies in coordinating their respective planning for action under the approved policies.... During the period 1953-1958, with which I am familiar, the great bulk of national security policy determinations were made by the President through the operations of the NSC mechanism just described." Clearly the OCB was part of the NSC mechanism in place for implementing NSC decisions as well as having to report to the NSC. ^Å [BS] Thus Jackson reported back to Eisenhower on Dec. 31, 1956, and Jan. 3, 1957, that the OCB needed to have Presidential (or Vice- Presidential) authority via the NSC to back up its orders, and so the OCB needed to be "integrated" directly into the NSC functionally. The OCB was not part of the NSC and thus had no power or authority to enforce its orders. Once OCB was part of the NSC it would be able to issue direct orders in the name of the NSC. Eisenhower agreed and ordered OCB merged into the NSC July 1, 1957, by his Executive Order 10700. Do you get that? The President had to personally intervene to make the OCB part of the NSC - long after Corso was long gone from the OCB. [MS] Now this is where you again err. What do you think the OCB was doing prior to its formal incorporation into the NSC? It was reporting to and implementing NSC decisions, just the same as after it's statutory incorporation into the NSC. [BS] You don't know what you're even talking about. The OCB was not "implementing" NSC decisions, that was the whole problem. You still refuse to "get it" because it destroys your precious liar boy Corso to have to recognize the truth. OCB was not functional, not effective, because it did not have the NSC's power, and had to solicit "voluntary cooperation" of other agencies. That's why Jackson intervened with the President to get OCB merged into the NSC. [MS] As I have repeatedly said, you ignore what Robert Cutler had to say about the OCB and how it was part of the implementing mechanism developed by the NSC. So the OCB was both reporting to and implementing NSC decisions. You ignore this point since it damages your weak argument that Corso was lying. [BS] You are so off the wall here you apparently can't even tell the difference between an Executive Order of the President (10700 which merged OCB and NSC) and the bogus "statutory incorporation [of OCB] into the NSC" which you refer to. There was no "statute" incorporating the OCB into the NSC. It was an Executive Order. Statutes are laws passed by Congress. This is sloppy desperate argumentation by someone who has utterly lost the argument and is trying to kick up whatever dust he can as a smokescreen. [MS] Again, your use of hyperbole is a unwelcome distraction and your language reflects your own desire to bolster a weak argument. Nevertheless, you are partly correct. I agree, it is not accurate to refer to the "statutory incorporation" of the OCB into the NSC since it was incorporated through EO 10700 rather than an Act of Congress such as the 1947 National Security Act. Nevertheless, Executive Orders have legal authority and are recorded in the Code of Federal Regulations so the point I was making was obviously that an authorized legal action was taken to incorporate the OCB into the NSC. I certainly could have used a more appropriate wording but the point was clear. [BS] Later histories and FBI references from the 60's look back on an OCB that ended its days as a part of the NSC from 1957- 1961. But Corso was with the OCB only from 1954 to 1956, when OCB was a "voluntary cooperation" type of paper-tiger agency that was not a part of the NSC. He cannot claim to have been an "NSC Staff" member. His claims were a lie pure and simple. He had no more right to claim being an "NSC Staff" member than any CIA employee or manager does just because the CIA coordinates for the NSC and reports to the NSC. [MS] As I said earlier, despite the evidence that I and others have given you that it has been standard practice for members of the OCB and historical researchers to refer to the OCB as part of the NSC throughout its history from 1953 to 1961. You insist that only EO 10700 made it part of the NSC in 1957. ^Å [BS] False! None of these others such as Cutler and the FBI memo said the OCB was part of the NSC "throughout its history from 1953 to 1961." Quote them saying "1953 to 1961"!! You can't because they never said such an absurd, historically and factually false thing, falsified by EO 10700 making OCB part of the NSC only in 1957. [MS] That is incorrect, I have twice quoted Cutler and he refers to the years 1953-58 when the OCB was part of the NSC mechansim for implementing decisions. So the OCB by the 1953 EO creating it, had within its mandate to report to the NSC, and as Cutler describes it, was part of the implementing mechanism for the NSC. So functionally it was part of the NSC before 1957. Your argument falls apart with Cutler's clear description of the OCB functions yet you doggedly ignore this. [BS] Corso lied repeatedly in claiming he had served on the illustrious "NSC Staff," when in fact he served on the paper- pushing OCB instead, at a time when it was not a part of the NSC and lacked the NSC's power and authority (1954-6). CIA employees are not allowed to say they worked for the "NSC Staff" when the CIA was exactly parallel to the OCB, in reporting to the NSC as an "independent agency." [MS] I have already responded to this above. Let me say in conclusion, that I have enjoyed the opportunity to review the history and functions of the OCB with you in order to determine the veracity of Corso's claims. I find your use of hyperbole an unwelcome distraction and hope in future you tone this down in order to better analyse with others the claims of whistleblowers such as Philip Corso. Personally, after reviewing all the documents and arguments so far I have to conclude that your argument is very weak and ignores abundant contrary evidence supporting Corso's claim of being a staff member of the NSC. Given that your claim that Corso is liar is a very strong claim to make, I would expect you to come up with much stronger arguments to support it. Your argument that everything prior to the 1957 EO that formally incorporated the OCB into the NSC meant that no one who served on the OCB was entitled to refer to themselves as a staff member of the NSC is very weak. The independent evidence from the FBI files, Senate POW hearing, Cutler's writing, all support Corso. I find it extraordinary that you would call such a well credentialled military servicemen a liar simply because of your propensity to historical revisionism based on your own subjective criteria that ignores contrary evidentiary sources. You are way overboard with your claims regarding Corso and I hope my efforts here have alerted some on this list to the weakness of the argument that Corso lied when it came to his claims of being an NSC staff member. Aloha, Michael Salla