[My Latest Retort To Salla]
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.
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!”
Respectfully,
Frank Warren
He also did try to discredit people whom we know are invovled in super legit work (salas/hastings...), so it is very curious???? Perhaps someone with something to gain is subsidizing his efforts? Perhaps not? I actually don't think we should care that much.