June 17, 2009
Ron Paul leads House to Audit the Federal Reserve;
Dennis Kucinich helps move H.R. 1207 out of committee;
True bi-partisan effort to thoroughly clean up US banking

     Congressman Ron Paul (Republic, Texas) , a well-admired Goldwater conservative, has authored H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which will give the GAO authority to examine and audit the black box accounting of the fraudulent central bank and perhaps eventually its purveyors in the Hapsburg, Rothschild and Rockefeller cabal.
     Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich provided the 218th co-sponsorship for H.R. 1207 that allowed it to move out of committee and be debated on the House floor.

Raw Story article: US House to Debate Ron Paul's 'Audit The Fed' Bill

Huffington Post: Handwritten Notes Show Fed Oversight Bill Neutered On Senate Floor

Prison Planet: US House to debate Ron Pauls' 'Audit The Fed' Bill

June 17, 2009
China, India, Brazil and Russia form BRIC alliance
    
     President Hu Jintao of China, President Medvedev of Russia, President Lula da Silva of Brazil, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India held a two-day summit and formed a new alliance, BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China, representing 40% of the entire world population) which called for "conditions for a fairer world order," and rejected the concept of the United States as the sole global superpower.
     In a joint statement, the leaders explained that, "We are committed to advance the reform of international financial institutions so as to reflect changes in the world economy. The emerging and developing countries must have a greater voice,"  and they also made reference to creating a "more diversified international monetary system."
     Both China and Russia have made it very clear that they no longer are willing to tolerate western imperialism in Asia, and are asserting themselves in order to liberate themselves from the corruption of Wall Street banking and European central banking systems. China has a lot to lose, in that it holds an enormous
two trillion dollars of U.S. treasury debt and foreign currency reserves.

Times Online article: Brazil, Russia, India and China form bloc to challenge
US dominance

AFP: Emerging giants issue dollar warning at key summit

May 28, 2009
Obama spends two days at Nellis AFB, home of Area 51

Two days.

President Barack Obama just spent two days inside Nellis Air Force Base, home to the most guarded air space in the United States: R4808-N, also known as Area 51, and its most top secret facility, S-4. Obama stayed overnight at Nellis on Tuesday night, before he spoke publicly on Wednesday the 27th of May, 2009.

Obama chose Nellis AFB to promote his administration’s new $787 billion stimulus bill in Nevada, which will only receive less than $1 billion ($868 million) of the stimulus funds. Obama, with Sen. Harry Reid, Majority leader, also had time to tour Nellis’ 72,000 panel solar energy project that provides about 25% of the Air Force Base’s energy needs.

Obama spoke for about fifteen minutes to several hundred members of the U.S. military. “We want,” Obama stated, “to make sure that our bases and our facilities are the best in the world for our best troops." Obama also acknowledged that some of the troops that he was addressing would soon be deployed to Iraq.

Obama’s plan puts only $467 million toward developing green energy in the next few years.

Two days which included an overnight stay, a quick solar energy tour, and a fifteen-minute speech which reveals Obama is still approving more troops in Iraq, and 0.06%  (thats 1/6000th) of the stimulus package toward developing green energy.

Why announce in Nevada at all, when none of the 100 projects was in Nevada? The Obama political team is saavy. The political missed opportunity to plug into popularity at a state that would get two or more of the 100 projects seems like a no-brainer, right? But they announce at Nellis AFB, not even Las Vegas or Reno where you have many more voting constituents than on a restricted airbase. Right there-- the lack of savvy-- makes me feel suspicious...

What did the President do minute-by-minute during the other many hours he was next door to R-4808-N aka Area 51 and S-4? I must admit that after what I have learned through study for the S-4 documentary I'm finishing that personally, as a citizen, I don't trust any of the information that comes out of there at face value, and disapprove of the actions of the most senior leadership in charge of America's activities at Area 51 since its inception.

Is there any reason to suspect that Obama did more at the home base of Area 51 than we are told? I still want to have hope in Obama. Why can't there be more press and exposure there? It's not like members of the press are going to get away with running off with sensitive information about the aircraft being tested there, especially when the base personnel know the press is on its way. Why distance the press? I don't get it. The press should be able to follow the President through most of his time there, even if it is a sensitive base, in an open and free society.

Why are we giving our  freedom (and journalistic freedom) away? Why isn't the press asserting its first amendment rights over "national security" and "state secrets" b.s. policies and denial by reckless, law-breaking (can you say FISA)  previous administrations?

Why are there no Senate inquiries into Cheney (his assassination ring and S-4)?

KVBC new article 'Nellis a "shining example"

Politico: None of '100 Projects' in Nevada

Transcript of Obama's speech from Las Vegas Sun

May 23, 2009
Semjase's words to Meier on the 70th Contact, from 1977
regarding the High Council of the Andromeda Star System

    I have been slowly reading "Messages From The Pleiades Volume Three," and I just read this passage for the first time last Tuesday, and the thought to post it persisted, so here it is:

May 14, 2009
Introduction to Dr. Michael Salla's statement
     I have elected to re-publish yesterday's article by Dr. Michael Salla in order to clarify the identity of another puppet/debunker in the UFO research community (Michael Horn, associated with the Swiss group FIGU) who continues to make personal atatcks on Alex Collier and the Exopolitics Institute.
     Other recent attatcks on Exopolitics by UFO abduction researcher Budd Hopkins (who works closely with Dr. David Jacobs) at the Int'l UFO Congress in 2008 have demonstrated a distinct unease for Salla, Collier and the Exopolitics Institute.
     Clearly, Horn, Hopkins and their ilk represent an opposing agenda(s) and are trying to retain control over the spread of UFO-related information for their own particular profit motives and control issues, without regard to schisms that they purposefully are attempting to foster within the UFO research community.
     Instead of adding new UFO research and analysis to the field, there appears to be a community of debunkers that will stop at nothing to retain control over public opinion, and find Salla, Collier and Exopolitics and what they are exposing particularly threatening to their agendas: simply stated, "Divide and Conquer." Here then is Salla's statement...
   
May 13, 2009
"Misperceptions and Fables about Exopolitics"
 by Dr. Michael Salla of Exopolitics.org

There has recently been a number of misperceptions and fables circulated about leading figures in exopolitics, and of the exopolitics movement in general. These misperceptions stem from a diverse number of criticisms over claims that intelligent life was recently proven to exist on Mars; lack of support for the Billy Meier case; or for supporting the claims of Alex Collier. In response to these criticisms, I need to first point out that exopolitics is a distinct disciplinary approach that rises beyond belief in the authenticity of any single case, whether it be whistleblower, contactee, UFO sighting event, document, NASA imagery, psychic source, or researcher for that matter. Exopolitics is simply the study of the political actors, processes and institutions concerning extraterrestrial life. That definition of exopolitics does not presuppose the existence of extraterrestrial life, only the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Those interested in exopolitical analysis consider ALL evidentiary sources pertinent to extraterrestrial life whether as a theoretical possibility; credible evidence; or concrete facts covered up by various government and corporate entities. While cooperation in the exopolitics field is highly desirable, unanimity is neither necessary nor healthy. What follows is my personal reaction to some of the criticisms that have emerged, and the misperceptions and fables upon which they are based.

As a pioneer in the rapidly growing exopolitics field, I have set out from the beginning to establish a firm methodological basis for exopolitics research. This I did with my very first paper, "The Need for Exopolitics," where I categorized different evidentiary sources in terms of their persuasiveness, and the different perspectives they provide on extraterrestrial life and technology. I provided an analysis of the evidence, much of it testimonial, in terms of its impact on global politics. This was done from the perspective of a university educator where students of global politics need to consider the content of different sources rather than focus on filtering them out. During the early 20th century, for example, many objected to including Marxist sources into university curricula based on empirical, logical or political objections. Most universities disagreed not because they agreed with all the Marxist sources, but as educators their primary responsibility was to train a new generation of students to intellectually engage with the content of the Marxist literature.

I use a similar pedagogical approach with regard to the exopolitical material. The word ‘pedagogy’ simply means teaching style and the best teachers are those that consider all sources of information relevant to their field – period! Sadly, many UFO researchers fulfill the function of intellectual gatekeepers for a distinct methodological approach based on empirical verification. They unjustifiably claim to be champions of the scientific method and vigorously attack those using sources they consider unproven or fall into a proverbial ‘grey box”. Unfortunately, their methodological approach has more to do with the Catholic Inquisition than any modern scientific approach to the data in question. More to the point, many critics lack any kind of formal academic training in social science research based on qualitative methods where subjective human cognitive processes are exhaustively analyzed. The result of the filtering process may lead to a highly restricted set of data that answers the question whether UFOs are real interplanetary vehicles, but leaves precious little for public policy analysis of evidence pointing to many related political processes, e.g., systematic cover-up of extraterrestrial life, targeting extraterrestrial vehicles with advanced space weapons, joint government-extraterrestrial bases, etc.

In my own research, I recognized that empirical verification of sources was often elusive at best, but more often compromised by various government agencies and corporations directly involved in a cover up of extraterrestrial evidence. According to an early exopolitics pioneer, Major Donald Keyhoe, these entities make up the “Silence Group”. Consequently, the absence of empirical or documentary verification is not a suitable basis for dismissing evidentiary sources but simply an additional factor to be considered in one’s exopolitical analysis. That invites the use of qualitative social science methods rather than a myopic focus on empirical validation of evidence that can always be distorted, removed or faked just as easily as witness testimony. Indeed, psychological warfare specializes in distorting facts and evidence. Many government/military entities have become very proficient in misleading the public about UFOs/extraterrestrials through planted stories, evidence and agents provocateurs.

I wish to now to specifically respond to several criticisms recently raised against exopolitics researchers including myself. The first concerns criticisms of leading exponents of the exopolitics movement for supporting the contention that there is life on Mars based on NASA image analysis. There is solid evidentiary support for the existence of ancient life and primitive life forms based on recent Mars image analysis and satellite studies of the Martian atmosphere. Prior to modern images gained by NASA since the early 1960s, astronomers found much evidence through powerful telescopes of the day that there were artificial constructions on Mars that pointed to ancient intelligent life. More recently, the NASA image analyses by Richard Hoagland,Mike Bara, Dr Thomas Van Flandern and others, have supported the existence of either ancient intelligent life, and/or modern vegetative life. Recently, Andrew D. Basagio released a paper arguing that Mars Rover imagery conclusively prove the existence of modern intelligent life on Mars.

I wish to publicly point out that I do not agree with Basagio’s conclusions nor his research method. In a phone conference with Mr Basagio earlier this year, I recommended that he seek independent expert analysis of the Rover images he analyzed in his paper before promoting his conclusions. I also pointed out the error in his reasoning that he had discovered life on Mars since it ignored the research findings of others such as Hoagland, Van Flandern, etc. I pointed out that the research findings of at least three independent experts would be the only way I could support his research paper since I am not an image analysis expert. He disagreed with my recommendation, and so I have to publicly part company with Basagio's research since many are mistakenly associating me as a supporter of his conclusions.

On the merits of Basagio’s paper and conclusions, there is disagreement among exopolitics researchers. That is not to be unexpected since exopolitics like any research field has different personalities and methodological approaches. While we may not always agree, we cooperate as far as possible. As I said above, unanimity is neither necessary nor healthy for the growth of the exopolitics discipline and movement. While I agree with evidence of ancient artificial structures and some form of current life on Mars, I do not base this on the research of Andrew Basagio. 

With regard to the Billy Meier case, I agree with the conclusions of the first investigations conducted by Lt Col Wendelle Stevens (USAF, ret.), Gary Kinder and Lee Elders that there is much merit in Billy Meier’s claims of contact with extraterrestrial life. I disagree however with those who have developed a cult-like environment around Billy Meier as the only alleged extraterrestrial contactee worth investigating. I especially disagree with the claims that Meier is the reincarnation of religious prophets such as Henoch/Enoch, Isaiah, Jmmanuel/Jesus, Muhammed, etc.. and that his warnings of future global catastrophe through a Third World War have any special merit. Unfortunately, the cult-like environment around Billy Meier has been encouraged due to the tight control over him by a Swiss support group called FIGU who restrict his access to modern researchers. Of greater concern is FIGU’s appointment of ‘publicists’ whose sole credentials appear to be unquestioned loyalty to Meier as the only “genuine contactee” and prophet of the modern age.

I now turn to criticisms of Alex Collier whose case I have actively investigated for several years. I have found no evidence of fraud in him claiming to have had extraterrestrial contact, nor has any evidence of fraud ever been presented to me by any critic making such a claim. Despite attempts by Billy Meier’s American publicist, Michael Horn, to persuade an impartial expert, veteran UFO researcher Lt Col Wendelle Stevens otherwise, Col Stevens confirmed in an email to me that he has “no reason to disbelieve him [Collier] or his statements.” Consequently, Horn’s claim of having proved Alex Collier to be a fraud is false. This is part of a pattern of willful deception where Horn admitted in a private email to independent investigatorsof the Meier material, to be “intentionally posting false and misleading articles on his website”. Overall, I have found Alex Collier to be a very warm sincere individual with much personal integrity who has made great personal sacrifices to talk about his extraterrestrial contact experiences. The recent savage personal attacks on his character and integrity have more to do with the personal deficiencies and “questionable agenda” of Meier's American publicist, than Alex’s character. For those interested in my own views or further information about Alex Collier, please go here.

In conclusion, criticisms of exopolitics pioneers and research fail to distinguish the extraordinary range in their research findings. Like any movement, we have a diversity of skills, backgrounds, and conclusions, but promote cooperation as far as possible. I and my colleagues in the Exopolitics Institute draw upon decades of professional experience and research into the extraterrestrial phenomenon and cognate fields. This research is often shared free to the general public despite the personal and professional cost for those of us involved in conducting such research. The same cannot be said for armchair critics who actively spread many misperceptions and fables about the exopolitics movement. I thank all the supporters and readers of my exopolitics research, and look forward to your continued support of the exopolitics movement.

Michael E. Salla, Ph.D
Kona, Hawaii 
5/13/09
www.Exopolitics.Org
Honolulu Exopolitics Examiner