Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Aug -> Here

From: Graham William Birdsall <106151.1150@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:24:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:44:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Pat Weisslander 'letter' on Stan Friedman

>Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 08:21:52 -0400
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Don Allen <dona@totcon.com>
>Subject: Pat Weisslander letter on Stan Friedman

>Stanton Friedman’s Biggest Contribution to Ufology.
>Pat Weissleader


>This account is a chronolog and is from memory, so there may be
inaccuracies
>in dates and minor data.

>....The next pertinent situation was the 1995 UFO Congress in Mesquite.
>The Santilli autopsy was the big issue and Graham Birdsell had come
>from England to present the points against it’s being authentic...

>I traded a copy for Graham’s booklet on his analysis of the case. I
>promised him that I would go over it thoroughly. And I did - and it
>was, in short, a pile of crap.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion!

>One comment he made was that the film should have been turned over
>to SF at once to pass judgment on it’s authenticity.

I said publicly that having spent some hours engaged with STF in his
London office, Ray Santilli could have at least shown Stan either a still
of the 'footage' - a photograph - anything. Ray chose none of these
options.

>He was defensive of SF and emotional about his dismissal of the film.

True on both counts.

>I believed his attitude to be an emotional dislike for the contents of the
>film. It is possible that it was for reasons other than that.

I maintained then and the same is true today, that unless and
until the so-called 'alien autopsy footage' has been
independently authenticated by accredited institutions, it must
remain suspect. Whether one applies the term "bogus" or "hoax" is
irrelevant.

>During the year I came upon references to the South African crashes
>and to the fact that Graham and SF were investigating them. I could
>not tell from the stories if either or both of them were actually
>in Africa, but it was implied, and I understand now that two of three
>events are now labeled as hoaxes.

There was an alleged Kalahari UFO crash-retrieval story that
received some prominence back in 1989-90, but STF and I did not
participate in any physical or on-site investigation. One of the
principal characters from S. Africa was ultimately discredited
and that was the end of the matter, albeit that correspondence
from the South Africa Division of Wright Patterson AFB indicated
some form of downed satellite was the culprit.

>I was pleased and surprised to see Graham and his wife back at the
>conference this year. But within minutes I knew what had happened.
>He gave a half smile and refused to meet my eyes, and had someplace
>else to be.

Quirk observation - several hundred pairs of eyes and I'm
expected to recognise everyone from the year before???

>His wife and daughters and I think a son, were all there.

Nope, just my wife, two of my three daughters and three
colleagues who travelled over with us from England. Seeing
how my male buddies were all in their 30s and 40s, (I'm 43
years-of-age) I guess I've more grey hairs than I thought....


>I heard from another vendor that they didn’t talk to the people who
>thought they had become friends the year before, except one daughter
>who said they would be going to all the conferences now.

Well, well. Nothing like good old-fashioned gossip and
tittle-tattle. Wrong on both counts. The 'girls' made loads
of friends and correspond throughout the year with several of
the folks they met. Sadly, the family budget doesn't allow
anyone to accompany me to Australia or Brazil later in the
year, but we will hopefully all be travelling to Nevada next
year for the Congress and then take a well-deserved vacation
in Vegas.

The youngsters do go to all the conferences - here in the UK,
where we stage several throughout the year...

>I work night security for the exhibits to earn my conference tickets,
>and one definite benefit of the job is to read everything in sight.
>I pulled out the 4 issues Graham had brought of his UFO magazine and
>studied them. There was a clear pattern of disinformation that I intended
>to later note piece by piece, but when I returned during the day to
>buy the magazines, the family had packed up and left for parts unknown.

All the magazines we brought with us quickly sold out after
2-3 days, but the 'girls' dutifully stood by the vending
tables to handle queries and the like until we finally left
the day after the Gala Dinner - we were there the full week.

Back-issues are available so please acquire said issues with alleged
disinformation.

>The connection with Bob Lazar’s statements, the merging of modified
>data will be used in the future-you will see - to make it appear as if Bob
>had said it all like that, and when it is decided that our Dr. Michael
Wolf
>goes down, they hope that Bob will be pulled with him. This is they type
>of disinformation setup that is made for people who are too ethical to be
>touched...

An 'alien autopsy' and Bob Lazar "believer" rolled into one.

>Now we have built a pretty tight case, don’t you think?, that SF is
>getting UFO periodical editors to skew information for financial
>gain.

Wrong. STF's views on Bob Lazar are well known and documented.

Stan went to great lengths to highlight blatant discrepencies in the story
and background of Dr. Wolf (especially his so-called accredited
professional
background). For our part, we merely transcripted a taped interview between
Dr. Wolf and American researcher James Courant, pointing out that thorough
research would need to be undertaken to test legitimacy/credibility.

>People who are in need of money to just present an appearance of being
>average, will work hard for pennies, but if given too much they will
>spend it in a showy manner and when they realize they are caught,
>they will make a showy confession like bil moore did. I expect Graham
>to break down in time and nauseate us all in a similar fashion. He
>was on the brink at Laughlin - the family was fighting, and his talk
>was not likely to get him invited back, half of it playing a movie
>we had all seen two nights before. And he knows that I know, though
>I am not sure if he understood what was going on when he defended
>SF to me last year.

And did you know that I know that I'm not sure if others know what the
hell you are going on about....

>Graham and his family are displaying a great expense account - I was
>told they have a upscale rental car...

It's called Fly-Drive over here - "...you too can Fly-Drive to Orlando for
only
$400 when you book through...."

Better still when you cram 6 people into one vehicle and share the expense!

>..and were not interested with trading material with other vendors when
>last year carrying anything back on the plane meant paying weight fees
>they did not have.

Wrong again. We actually struck some excellent deals with several of the
vendors
and brought plenty of merchandise and samples back with us to the UK.

Your'e right about having to watch the weight though - I waved the white
flag as soon as I sat down for lunch on my first day in Nevada and have
paid the price ever since in not being able to climb into my suit...

>If it is intended for Stanton to go down in flames, it will happen
>in any case, and if I should profit by it, that would be a by product
>of doing what must be done.

I am proud to call Stanton T. Friedman a friend. I have
had the privilege of inviting him to speak at several
venues here in the UK over the last decade and always
enjoy his company whenever and wherever our paths meet,
including overseas engagements.

Once you get to know him (and you patently do not), you
discover another side to Stanton Friedman.

Stan is a warm and caring individual with a loving family to match.

He has his critics (don't we all), but there is a huge
gulf between constructive criticism and what any
fair-minded individual would judge to be unjustified
mischief-making of the kind we have seen here.

>Please let me know if you received it! and if you think I am crazy
>please spread it around so I can feel safer.

>Pat Weissleader

Pat, whoever you are, you don't need my help or anyone else's for that
matter to spread your message. Time to move on folks.

Best regards,


Graham W. Birdsall (Editor)

UFO Magazine [UK]