Aloha all, here's my latest Exopolitics Comment which examines the 
kinds of questions investigators should ask whistleblowers who claim 
to be revealing classified information from projects involving 
extaterresrial entities or technologies.

Click here for A formated version with a summary table Any suggestions for improving my list of questions will be welcomed. In peace Michael Salla, PHD ******************** Exopolitical Comment # 30: Asking the Right Questions in UFO Research and Exopolitics Classified projects related to extraterrestrial biological entities (EBEs) or extraterrestrial technologies are conducted by range of military services, national security agencies and private corporations. These are without exception highly compartmentalized and classified with severe penalties for those releasing information on these without authorization. Classification levels go beyond the conventional `Confidential', `Secret' and `Top Secret' classification used in the U.S. for those working with sensitive government information; and involve compartmentalized classifications such as MAJIC, COSMIC, UMBRA, and Q clearances which are all strictly awarded on a `need to know' basis. Project managers of highly classified or `deep black' projects that fall under compartmentalized categories reserved for extraterrestrial related affairs, are responsible for setting security procedures for such projects and these procedures are enforced with no oversight by Congressional/Legislative committees. The Project Manager has great autonomy in setting security procedures that are designed to prevent unauthorized access by all except those with a demonstrable `need to know'. Individuals who are employed in such projects perform specific functions according to their training and as a consequence have to agree to security procedures, even if this conflicts with their basic Constitutional rights. Furthermore, whistleblowers who reveal `unauthorized' information may be permitted to do so as long as this is confined to areas and topics that are approved by clandestine authorities responsible for authorizing public disclosure. In such cases of unauthorized release of classified information where the whistleblower/witness is not punished for such disclosures, a policy of discrediting the whistleblower/witness is put in place. The committee system created to oversee and coordinate highly classified projects involving EBEs and ET technologies can be described as the `secret government'. The `secret government' dates from the creation of the Majestic 12 Committee allegedly created by President Truman, and mentioned for the first time in the famed Truman Memo of September 24, 1947. The growing power and influence of the `secret government' has resulted in the gradual erosion of Presidential executive power in the UFO/extraterrestrial matters. This was confirmed by President Bill Clinton to famed journalist Sarah McClendon who asked him why he doesn't do more to tell the public the truth about UFO's, Clinton replied: "Sarah, there's a secret government within the government, and I have no control over it." The procedures and penalties associated for those involved in the unauthorized release of information from highly classified projects related to EBEs and/or ET technologies is often ignored by UFO researchers who typically ask specific questions of whistleblowers or witnesses about events, documents, entities or technology associated with the classified projects the whistleblower/witness allegedly worked in. These questions are often designed to determine whistleblower/witness `credibility', `knowledge' of the project in question, and their `veracity'. However, these kinds of questions may threaten the individual if s/he were to comply since it may reveal more classified information than the individual is `permitted' to reveal. Asking the wrong question can close the door on a promising avenue of information and more importantly get the whistleblower/witness into a great deal of trouble. What follows is a list of ten `wrong' questions to be asked of whistleblowers/witnesses concerning extraterrestrial related `deep black' projects. An explanation for why a question is the wrong one to ask, and a suggestion for the `right' question is offered. Wrong Questions to Ask Whistleblowers/Witnesses of `Deep Black' Projects. 1. Where's the hard evidence for your claims? This question is wrong to ask since it assumes that the whistleblower can provide hard evidence to substantiate his/her claims. This puts the burden of proof on a witness/whistleblower revealing information on classified projects to provide sufficient hard evidence to satisfy whatever criteria imposed by the researcher. It is illegal to posses `hard evidence' on classified projects so demanding this of whistleblowers or demanding sufficient hard evidence to satisfy the researchers criteria does not serve any purpose other than helping to discredit whistleblowers when this cannot be supplied. Right Question is: Is the hard evidence for your claims classified, and has it been altered or removed from the public arena? 2. Where are documents proving your service record or employment history? This is a wrong question since it assumes that documents accurately detailing the work history for employees or military service personnel in classified projects are freely available. This is not the case since security procedures set in place by Project Managers require such records to be altered or removed from the public arena as a condition of service, and/or destroyed subsequent to any unauthorized disclosure of information. Right Question: Are your military service records or employment documents in any way subject to the security procedures enforced by the classified project you worked in? 3. Why should we believe you that you served/worked in a classified project involving EBEs or ET Technologies? This is a wrong question since it assumes that the whistleblower/witness credibility comes from their ability to prove that s/he worked in a highly classified project. There are severe penalties in place for revealing information concerning classified projects that may constrain a whistleblower/witness from disclosing information to confirm their employment or which threaten corroborating witnesses. Emphasis should be on unique factors or details known by the whistleblower which help establish their credibility. It is necessary for the whistleblower to reveal only that which s/he feels is permitted, rather than pressuring them to reveal information that may prejudice their or others safety. Right Question: What helps establish your credibility as someone who served/worked in a classified project involving EBEs or ET technologies?\ 4. Why should we believe you when there are inconsistencies in documents outlining your service record/employment history and the claims you are making? This is a wrong question since it assumes that documents detailing the assignments or work history for military personnel or corporate employees in highly classified projects accurately reflect the assignments/employment of such individuals. This is not the case since security procedures set in place by Project Managers require that no mention is made of the actual training, service or employment of such individuals for the specific tasks/positions in highly classified projects involving EBEs or ET technologies. Right Question: Do documents detailing your service record/employment history accurately record the positions, training and duties you undertook in the classified project? 5. Why should we believe you when no public records exist verifying your alleged education at the universities you claim? This is a wrong question since it ignores the agreements that the `secret government' has with a number of public education institutions over the enrolment of government sponsored students. The question also ignores that the `secret government' has the power to remove or alter public records, and intimidate professors or corroborating witnesses concerning particular students. Universities that train or educate personal sponsored to work in highly classified projects involving EBEs and/or ET technologies have agreements whereby students completing degrees do not have these recorded in the same public records as occurs with `normal students'. Also, those who have completed their higher education in non-government sponsored programs, can still have their records altered or removed from the universities in which they were enrolled in. Right Question: Was a condition of your service/employment that your education record would be removed from the public arena either prior to your employment or subsequent to any unauthorized release of classified information? 6. Why should we believe anything you have to say since there are no independent witnesses to support your claims? This is a wrong question because often whistleblowers/witnesses in highly classified projects are willing to risk their careers, reputations and safety in coming forward. This does not imply that colleagues or other witnesses of classified projects will be willing to do the same. Also, independent witnesses can be threatened or intimidated into silence if a whistleblower gets much exposure as occurred in the Bob Lazar case and his former colleagues at the Meson Particle Facility at Los Alamos Research Laboratory who were threatened if they spoke about the Lazar case. The researcher looking for corroborating witness testimony is likely to be frustrated and reach the wrong conclusions about the validity of a whistleblower's testimony in the absence of corroborating witnesses. It's best to focus on those aspects of a whistleblower's employment or background that don't deal with their work on classified projects, and thus build a case for the whistleblower's claims in terms of their employment background, education, special abilities, etc. Right Question. Are there any witnesses who can corroborate those parts of your testimony that does not deal with classified information? 7. Why should we believe in your conspiracy theory that a `secret government' exists that controls all information and projects relating to EBE's or ET technologies? This is a wrong question since it assumes that the whistleblower is proposing a conspiracy theory rather than accurately reporting events as s/he has encountered them during his/her military service or employment. Whistleblowers should not be viewed as `conspiracy theorists' but merely witnesses of an institutionalized system secretly created to deal with extraterrestrial affairs in a highly classified and compartmentalized manner. Whistleblowers often have direct experience of the secret committee system created to control deep black projects concerning EBEs and/or ET technologies. The `secret government' is a rubric for a committee system that is opaque and unknown to the general public. Right question: What information do you have about the role of an alleged `secret government' that controls all information and projects relating to EBEs and/or ET technologies? 8. If you are genuinely a whistleblower/witness of classified projects involving EBEs and/or ET technologies, why hasn't your alleged `secret government' simply eliminated you? This is a wrong question since it assumes that if whistleblowers are correct in their claims of a `secret government' with virtually unlimited resources to enforce security in classified EBE and/or ET technology projects, then the logical outcome is that whistleblowers will be eliminated if they come forward. This does not logically follow since whistleblowers form a safety valve in the event of a catastrophic breakdown in secrecy concerning the presence of extraterrestrials and their technology. Allowing whistleblowers to come forth while simultaneously discrediting and threatening them in how much they reveal, allows the `secret government' controlling `deep black' projects to regulate the amount of information released into the general public and its impact. If a catastrophic breakdown in secrecy occurs, the `secret government' could claim it permitted the whistleblowers to come forth in order to prepare the general public for full disclosure. This would help protect the legitimacy of the `secret government' and maintain support for the continuation for most if not all highly classified projects dealing with EBEs and/or ET technologies. Right question: What threats have been made to silence or intimidate you in what you can reveal in your public disclosures? 9. Why should we believe you when members of the scientific community say your claims are not supported by present scientific knowledge? This is a wrong question since it assumes that knowledge possessed by the scientific community is an accurate reflection of technologies that are developed or used in highly classified projects involving EBEs and/or ET technologies. Those responsible for controlling highly classified projects involving EBEs and ET technology have only allowed a limited amount of information concerning technologies used in these projects into the scientific community so present scientific knowledge is an unreliable indicator of the technologies and/or knowledge used in deep black projects. Right question: How much of the information/knowledge used in the classified project you worked/served in is available to the scientific community? 10. Why should we believe that you aren't just another opportunist seeking fame or fortune for their alleged experiences while serving in the military or working for a private corporation? This is a wrong question since it implies that whistleblowers are seeking fame or fortune when the truth is that they often risk financial security as a consequence of their disclosures. Whistleblowers also risk credibility with friends and/or colleagues in coming forward with their claims, and typically shun opportunities to profit from their experiences. It is also highly insulting for a whistleblower to be questioned in this way due to the great financial and personal sacrifices they often undergo to come forward with information which is still classified. Right question: In what way does your coming forward to reveal your testimony threaten your financial livelihood and damage your reputation? May 14, 2005 Michael E. Salla, PhD E-mail Michael E SALLA PHD!!!!! ############################################################################################# Subject: [exopolitics] Whistleblowers, National Security & Unauthorized Disclosure of ETV/EBE Projects ############################################################################################### >>>>>Source<<<<<<< Exopolitical Comment # 32: Whistleblowers, National Security and Unauthorized Disclosure of ETV/EBE Classified Projects I have recently had a number of discussions with members of the UFO Updates forum and it's become clear that there is a quite a gap between those who advocate investigating whistleblower claims concerning highly classified projects involving ETVs/EBEs and those arguing that there isn't the hard evidence or documentation to merit since an investigation. I think some of the key issues have been discussed in cases of whistleblowers such as Phillip Corso, Clifford Stone, Robert Dean, Bob Lazar, etc. ( see >>>>>Click HERE<<<<<< OR: >>>>>Click HERE<<<<< It seems that the underlying disagreement stems from what can and can't be done in terms of security procedures set up to maintain secrecy in such projects. It is clear to me that there has been little research done on how classified projects are set up and security procedures set up for those by UFO researchers. This is quite surprising given that the UFO phenomenon has been going on for five decades and it's well known that various national security agencies and military departments classify this information since it poses a threat to national security. The lack of discussion of security procedures set up for classified projects involving EBEs/ETVs is a major omission and I hope that this can shortly be rectified by the investigative abilities of many researchers on this forum. To start off discussion what I offer below is an overview of the classified projects concerning ETVs/EBEs in the United States and how these differ in security procedures to other less classified projects and information. This should stimulate discussion so we can know what parameters are in place that makes the testimonies of many whistleblowers with otherwise solid credentials, so difficult to assess. For those wanting to understand how classification occurs in the U.S., I recommend the following Congressional report by the Moynihan Commission which details the current classification system in the US: . Current classification policies of the US Army are described in Army Regulation (AR) 380-5 First it's important to distinguish between the Confidential, Secret and Top Secret classifications currently used for information the release of which is deemed to damage national security in the U.S., and the various compartments created for more restricted information. CONFIDENTIAL is applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could be reasonably expected to cause DAMAGE to the national security. SECRET is applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could be reasonable expected to cause SERIOUS DAMAGE to the national security. TOP SECRET is applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could be reasonable expected to cause EXCEPTIONALLY GRAVE DAMAGE to the national security. Next it's important to understand the different types of compartments and projects that require 'special controls' and/or a "need to know". Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) involves information and material that requires SPECIAL CONTROLS for restricted handling in the compartmented systems in which they are located. A Special Access Program (SAP) require a clear 'need to know' in addition to the above classifications of Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. In addition to the above there is the Q-clearance which is required for all those working in the Nuclear Industry. Q-Clearance relates to SCI and SAPS that pertain to nuclear technology and information. Information about the above classifications is available in the public realm. Classified programs and information are subject to oversight either through Congressional committees and/or Executive oversight through the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) which is attached to the National Security Council. There are severe penalties for those disclosing unauthorized classified information and these are determined by internal procedures that are spelt out in various manuals governing SAPs and SCI in the various branches of the military and government agencies. The procedures governing penalties over unauthorized disclosure are subject to the congressional/executive oversight procedures in place. However, Congress has shown that in the case of waived SAP/SCI it exercises little effective oversight and this was identified as a major problem in the Moynihan Commission Report. A 'waived' SAP/SCI is so sensitive that only eight members of Congress (the chairs and ranking members of the four intelligence [or defense] committees divided between the House of Representatives and Senate) are notified of a waived SAP/SCI without being given any information about it. This means that for SAPs and SCI that falls into the waived category, there is no effective scrutiny by Congress of the security procedure in place for these and the penalties in place for unauthorized disclosure. So the idea that Congress has effective oversight over waived SAPs/SCI is a myth. The security procedures in place for SAPs/SCI are not under any effective Congressional oversight. While in theory, oversight coordination occurs in the ISOO set up in the NSC that issues an annual report to the President; the power to approve or terminate a CAP/SCI lies with the respective intelligence community and Department of Defense committees and executive officers. In general, Executive Office oversight of SAPs/SCI has been described as "nothing more than a sop used to placate anyone who questions the propriety of an administration's covert action policy." As far as whistleblowers of egregious policies that threaten public interest are concerned, there is a procedure whereby whistleblowers can typically chose to disclosure such practices either to Congress or to the Inspector-General in the agency or department where these occur. While whistleblower protection is not great for those disclosing egregious practices in the way SAPs and SCI are run, it exists in theory for those programs where Congress is informed of these. In the case of waived SAPs/SCI, Congressional protection for whistleblowers is non-existent since such programs are not acknowledged to exist. This means that a whistleblower from a waived SAP or dealing with waived SCI has no congressional protection since it is a crime to acknowledge the existence of such an SAP or SCI. Also, the penalty procedures in place for these have no Congressional oversight and the executive oversight exercised by the ISOO is questionable at best. This finally takes me to SAPs or SCI that deal with extraterrestrial vehicles (ETVs) or extraterrestrial biological entities (EBEs). These are compartmented into projects using various titles such as 'Majestic', 'Majic', 'Umbra' or 'Cosmic' and at the very least are waived SAPs/SCI that the four relevant committee chairs and minority leaders in Defense or Intelligence are informed about but not given any written information on. It is more likely that due to the covert funding used for these waived SAPs/SCI, that even the congressional chairs are not informed of these due to the true number of these SAPs/SCI whose budgetary needs go far beyond congressional estimates of appropriated 'black budget' funds used for waived SAPs/SCI (see my black budget report Leaked documents such as the Truman Memo (Sept 24, 1947); Eisenhower Briefing Document (1952); and the Special Operations Manual (1954) reveal the existence of the 'Majestic' classification category. In another leaked 'Majestic' document, the "Majest Twelve Project: 1st Annual Report" it is stated that the "national security status of the MAJESTIC operation exceeds that of the H-bomb development" (Robert Woods, ed., The Majestic Documents, p. 110). There are a number of programs within the 'Majestic' classification compartment all of which fall into the category of waived SAPs/SCI the existence of which is a secret. Without any Congressional oversight of these, the penalties and security procedures set in placed to prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified information are not publicly known. From the testimonies of a number of whistleblowers who have emerged to reveal classified information concerning how classified projects involving ETVs/EBEs are run (e.g., Clifford Stone, Dan Sherman, Bob Lazar, Dan Morris, Don Phillips and Daniel Salter) and from leaked 'Majestic Documents', the following practices designed to enforce secrecy are allegedly in place: 1. Discrediting individuals making unauthorized disclosures; 2. Manipulation of the press in order to prevent coverage of 'unauthorized disclosures' by individuals 3. Employees/servicemen have to sign away their constitutional rights when contracted/serving in compartmented programs involving Majestic/Cosmic secrecy classifications; 4. Removal of public documents recording educational or employment history of individuals making unauthorized disclosures; 5. Official denial of the employment history or service record of individuals making unauthorized disclosures 6. Intimidation of independent witnesses who can confirm the identity, educational qualifications or work history of individuals making unauthorized disclosures 7. Confinement of individuals making unauthorized disclosures without them being given any legal rights, e.g., habeus corpus 8. Using MKULTRA mind control techniques such as Electronic Dissolution of Memory and behavior modification techniques to prevent unauthorized disclosures; 9. Physical intimidation and the use of excessive violence against individuals making unauthorized disclosures and/or their family members; 10. 'Elimination' of individuals making unauthorized disclosures Leaked documents indicate that the SAPs/SCI that fall into the Majestic classification compartment require the enforcement of extremely strict security procedures. The Eisenhower Briefing Document for example states: "the Majestic-12 Group remains of the unanimous opinion that imposition of the strictest security precautions should continue without interruption". These leaked documents lend support to whistleblower claims of draconian security procedures in place to deal with projects that fall into the compartment security classifications created for UFO/extraterrestrial affairs: Majestic; Cosmic; Umbra, etc. Confirmation of these whistleblower testimonies is made especially difficult since the existence of the SAPs/SCI they are disclosing officially remain secrets the disclosure of which presumably leads to "exceptionally grave damage" to U.S. national security. The US Congress therefore is hamstrung in seriously considering or providing protection to whistleblowers disclosing egregious practices that genuinely threaten public interest in the way these projects are run and the information contained in them. For Congress to consider such whistleblower testimony would mean confirming the existence of SAPs/SCI the disclosure of which arguably would lead to "exceptionally grave damage" to U.S. national security. There is clearly a tension between conflicting imperatives in what is described so far in terms of congressional responses to whistleblower testimonies. On the one hand is the imperative of serving the broader public interest of learning about waived SAPs/SCI dealing with ETVs/EBEs and the draconian security procedures in place to prevent unauthorized disclosure of such programs/information. On the other hand there is the reasonable risk posed to national security by the unauthorized release of such information. In the midst of this tension created by conflicting imperatives lie a number of exceptionally brave individuals who have come forward to disclose information concerning waived SAPs/SCI dealing with ETVs/EBEs. The rights of these individuals need to be recognized despite the tension between the public interest they claim to serve and the national security interests that proscribe unauthorized disclosures of highly classified information. There is no legal protection for whistleblowers coming forward to make unauthorized disclosures of classified information concerning ETV/EBE related SAPs/SCI. Whistleblowers that come forward do so with the genuine conviction that are serving the broader public interest and they have a legitimate concern that the broader public interest is not being met by the current policy of maintaining a secrecy using the "strictest security precautions." Currently draconian security procedures are in place to enforce secrecy concerning programs and information the existences of which are national secrets. There is an urgent need for public debate over the most appropriate policies for dealing with the information and technologies currently hidden in waived SAPs/SCIs concerning ETVs/EBEs. Important steps in such a debate are to have such information enter the public realm, and for whistleblowers disclosing such information be given 'a fair hearing' despite the inherent difficulties in confirming their testimonies. Finding some balance between the respective needs of protecting 'national security', promoting the 'public interest', and recognizing the 'civil rights' of whistleblowers is urgently required. Seriously considering the testimonies of whistleblowers will help find a balance that will serve both the broader public interest and genuine national security needs. UFO researchers can play an important role in finding such a balance by giving serious attention to the claims made by whistleblowers from ETV/EBE related classified projects. Without such support, the efforts of these whistleblowers is unlikely to change what appears to be an unresponsive national security system that assesses the potential damage posed by the release of such information purely from its own assessment of what constitutes "exceptionally grave damage" to national security without sufficient input from the U.S. Congress or U.S. citizens. Michael E. Salla, PhD June 3, 2005 Exopolitics main site Email Dr.Salla!!!!!!