Addendum:
Response From Dan Burisch
12-6-5
Hello, Jeff
I just wanted to touch base
with you about Robert Byrd, the man who filed
an affidavit under penalty of perjury, and who
actually confirmed my doctoral degree at the
State University of New York at Stony Brook. He
has been located and he will be interviewed
by Ron Garner (rgarner@apexusa.net), for the
record and on tape. For further information,
there is an independent site (I have spoken
to the person, and provided an affidavit for
him, but don't have any alliance with him) which
can provide you much more information. www.danburisch.info
My affidavit may be found at the above site,
together with the clandestine photos taken of
Deborah (my wife) in possession of the SUNY
SB Ph.D. It is this type of affidavit that certain
people in the ufocommunity and press don't want
to ever see the light of day. Funny, isn't
it? All these docs are public, yet KLAS
TV 8 couldn't find them. They were able
to locate an completely unrelated person's car,
though, and spread that person's information
all over the net.
This will give you a very small
clue of what is coming next year. For instance,
a certain neurophysiologist now has doubts,
but before my account gained any traction...well...read
for yourself. Further, the Aviary, now
spouting disinformation about a nonexistent
place called Serpo, has a now deceased acquaintance
named Tom Mack. Tom, a vetted person from
Groom Lake by the same group just mentioned,
saw me at Papoose and confirmed it in a letter
before his death. We have the letter.
I have attempted to attach
files, but each time I do, they are sent back
via mailer-daemon for excessive size. For further
information, please also feel free to contact
Bill Hamilton (xplorer2x@yahoo.com),
Marcia McDowell (marcia_mcdowell@yahoo.com),
or even Deborah Burisch (snowstorms61@yahoo.com).
I hope to chat with you next
year, Jeff. At that time, Ron Garner will
be doing all the scheduling.
Dan
Danny B Catselas Burisch, Ph.D.
H-6196-Maj-E ret.
The next day, the further
rebuttal:
Response From Dan Burisch
12-6-5
Hello, Jeff
I just wanted to touch base
with you about Robert Byrd, the man who filed
an affidavit under penalty of perjury, and who
actually confirmed my doctoral degree at the
State University of New York at Stony Brook. He
has been located and he will be interviewed
by Ron Garner (rgarner@apexusa.net), for the
record and on tape. For further information,
there is an independent site (I have spoken
to the person, and provided an affidavit for
him, but don't have any alliance with him) which
can provide you much more information.
www.danburisch.info
My affidavit may be found at
the above site, together with the clandestine
photos taken of Deborah (my wife) in possession
of the SUNY SB Ph.D.
It is this type of affidavit
that certain people in the ufocommunity and
press don't want to ever see the light of day. Funny,
isn't it? All these docs are public, yet
KLAS TV 8 couldn't find them. They were
able to locate an completely unrelated person's
car, though, and spread that person's information
all over the net.
This will give you a very small
clue of what is coming next year. For instance,
a certain neurophysiologist now has doubts,
but before my account gained any traction...well...read
for yourself. Further, the Aviary, now
spouting disinformation about a nonexistent
place called Serpo, has a now deceased acquaintance
named Tom Mack. Tom, a vetted person from
Groom Lake by the same group just mentioned,
saw me at Papoose and confirmed it in a letter
before his death. We have the letter.
I have attempted to attach
files, but each time I do, they are sent back
via mailer-daemon for excessive size. For further
information, please also feel free to contact
Bill Hamilton (xplorer2x@yahoo.com),
Marcia McDowell (marcia_mcdowell@yahoo.com),
or even Deborah Burisch (snowstorms61@yahoo.com).
I hope to chat with you next
year, Jeff. At that time, Ron Garner will
be doing all the scheduling.
Dan
Danny B Catselas Burisch, Ph.D.
H-6196-Maj-E ret.
The exchange between
George Knapp and Dr Burisch was played out on
the Stargate Forum also:
Dec. 1, 2005 Midnight local
Las Vegas time:
Okay folks...THE BEAT DOES
GOES ON!!!
Remember now...this list comes
from about 3 minutes of Knapp-time...
[editor's note: the following
exchange shows Dr. Burisch's first reply to
the on-air presentation of his 'story', followed
by a reply posted on the forum by George Knapp,
shown by the initials 'GK', followed by a final
reply by Dan as shown by the initials 'DB'.]
List of inaccuracies (primary):
1. George Knapp said my name
was first: Danny Catselas, then Danny Crain,
then Burisch.
Wrong. My name was first Danny
B Crain, then Danny B Catselas Burisch.
It was legally changed in 1995 and the court
docs are KNOWN.
GK: No, YOU are wrong. That
isn't what I said. I'm looking at the script
at this moment. And as of tomorrow, the off-air
version will be available on the klastv.com
website so you can all see it for yourself.
The exact line was "His name today is
Dan Burisch. Before that it was Dan Catselas.
When we first ran into him, it was Dan Crain."
Isn't that the order? My memory--which certainly
isn't perfect in light of the case of beer
and ounce of meth that I consume every night--insert
smiley face here--is that Dan used Catselas
for a period before Burisch was added. I could
be wrong about that, but I'm not wrong about
the order.
Furthermore,
Dodie Crain told Jerry Pippins during their
interview that the last name was Catselas
first but that it was changed to Crain as
"the only way to get the blessings of
the parents", whatever that means. I
don't have any interest in belaboring this
point and have never known of any other example
in which there was this much confusion about
someone's name, with the exception of families
that have assumed more than one new identity
after entering the witness protection program.
Suffice to say, there is some confusion, but
there is no confusion about what I said, as
everyone can see for themselves soon enough.)
DB: I agree that I may
have had the order out of place, but it
makes no real difference as the base assertion
is totally wrong- 3 names? No. I HAVE NEVER
CARRIED THE NAME "DANNY CATSELAS"...
I was born on 2/2/64 under the name "Danny
B Crain", and at the end of 1995 my
name was changed to "Danny B Catselas
Bursich". I have never carried any
other name than those two, period.
2. George Knapp showed a sticker
on a vehicle claiming it was mine and/or Deb's,
and said that we could have got it as Deb has
a family member in the U.S. Military.
Wrong. We have NEVER had a
Nellis sticker on our vehicle for Access to
NAFB...never. HE GOT THE WRONG CAR! ...God Bless
him! Further, Deb has no family member in the
military. The last one she had was her father.
He died in 2000, and the last time he was in
the military was the Korean War!
GK: Put it this way, there
is a Nellis sticker on the windshield of the
car that sits in the parking space assigned
to Dan's apartment. Did a neighbor who also
has a Nellis sticker accidentally park in
the wrong space? The car with the sticker
that was parked in the space assigned to the
Burisch apartment sure looks lke the same
car that is featured in the photos taken at
Frenchmans Mountain. And, as Dan's supporters
have pointed out , he and Deb have been able
to enter Nellis AFB at will, a point that
seems to hold great importance to some. A
sticker like the one on that windshield would
certainly make access to the base easier.
Nellis told me, in writing, that this particular
sticker is pretty easy to get, so long as
someone in the family had been a member of
the military, and that the sticker expires
at the end of this year. I recognize that
Deb's father wasn't an active duty military
man and that he passed away 5 years ago, but
according to what Nellis told me, this would
still allow her to have such a sticker in
order to access the commissary, for example.
If this is an error, I will own up to it,
but I think you can see how this conclusion
was reached. For my own edification, I will
call Nellis again to ask if they can release
the name of the person to whom that sticker
was assigned. I will also use other resources
to run a DMV check on the license plate of
the car, and no matter what the results show,
I will pass the information along to anyone
who is interested. Fair enough?)
DB: That's right, George,
there may be a car that is parked in our
space, but the car is not ours, nor any
friends of ours. When one assumes, one makes
an... We don't use that space. Why? That's
our business. Maybe I don't want my car
photographed without my permission? Seems
to have worked! We have never had a NAFB
pass, as whenever we would enter NAFB, it
was done with a liaison from inside. Yes,
pass the information along, and find out
that you are wrong.
3. George said he had a tape
of Marcia uprooting a "SPACE PROBE"
at Frenchman's Mountain.
Wrong. Oh, my God! It was
the Aug 14, 2001 probe I placed at Frenchman's
Mountain as a first attempt lure for GP's. ...and
I am still very upset at Marcia for stealing
it. ...
GK: This is pretty weird.
I had no doubt that someone in the group had
planted the object there, since Marcia had
no trouble in finding it. The fact that she
knew it was created by Dan but STILL went
through this whole dramatic retrieval, followed
by 20 or more minutes of a dissection procedure,
comparable to the alien autopsy, is perplexing.
Anyone who has seen this tape would think
it represented the discovery of the century.
Dan says this was a probe. Well, again I admit
my ignorance, but this contraption was made
out of common electrical tape, some rubber
tubing, a couple of syringes, and what looks
like a meat thermometer. I realize I am opening
myself up to some cheap shots, but I have
to say that this device--to a layman-- looked
ridiculous. MM's very intense and lengthy
dissection exercise of something she knew
was made by Dan seems all the more theatrical.
I have the entire tape, supplied by MM, and
will make it available to others who can judge
it for themselves. As with everything else
in this case, I am willing to be educated
about any gaps in my understanding of this
. My characterization of the object as "a
space probe" does not seem out of line,
especially in light of the comments that Marcia
makes on this tape. If it was designed to
detect GP's, which, as I understand it, arrive
here from outer space, then I don't see how
my terminology is so objectionable. I did
not say the probe itself arrived from space,
as viewers will see when they view my story,
but I can see how this could be misinterpreted.
Again, there were time constraints involved.
I could have spent the entire report explaining
the history of the hidden probe, I suppose,
but chose instead to move along to other things.
Note to Dan---since your wife stole your diploma
and Marcie stole your probe, you might wantt
to hide your wallet.)
DB: I will admit to
not reading the entire reply, above, as
the facts have never labelled the item as
a SPACE PROBE. I put it there...it was a
biological experiment, which was remobved
without my permission by Marcia. Wrong is
wrong.
4. George said even my Mom
had doubts.
Wrong.
Look at the film. She was so pissed off when
she said, "well if my son is the biggest
bullshitter in the world, then show me..."
She said it defensively and with extreme anger,
as she was pissed off at George at the time.
I had Ron here, who was at that meeting and
he verified what was going on at the time. Perhaps
he missed her affidavit...as well as Byrd's,
"Spangler's", and mine? I am sure
he missed Tom Mack's letter.
GK: Okay, we can take Ron
Garner's word for it, as told second-hand
to Dan, or we can view my tape of the interview.
Our camera was rolling throughout the encounter.
I know what was said and can prove it. Dan
seems pretty certain what his mom meant even
though he has not comunicated with her for
many years. She didn't seem pissed off at
me, in my judgement, especially since she
and Ron were the ones who ASKED to meet with
me in the first place. The real issue is this--did
I accurately report what Dodie expressed to
me? Yes I did. As you will all see in the
tape of the story, my exact words were these:
"Someone else who believes Burisch is
his mom, Dodie Crain, although she has some
doubts too." Another line was this: "Dodie
declined an on camera interview but told us
her son, whom she hasn't seen in 12 years,
is telling the truth." Explain to me
how this is a misrepresentation. I especially
want to hear from all of those who were not
present for this exchange. By that, I mean
everyone else who is reading this. Dodie believes
her son but has some doubts. That is an accurate
assessment, whether anyone believes it or
not. I have the tape. You don't.
DB: I have simply said
that I observed her behavior at that was
my take. It is very true that you quoted
her saying that I am telling the truth,
which is correct. No, I don't have the tape.
I'll live with it.
|
5. George said that I graduated
with my PhD at SUNY in 1990, then showed my
work evals from P/P from 1990. I know they were
mine, as the copies of them originally came
from me!
Wrong. 1989.
GK: You've got to be kidding.
Dan, are you trying to
say there is no confusion about just exactly
when the
degree was earned? Look at your own accounts
of this.
Look at the assorted, sometimes conflicting
website
bio info. Sometimes it is 1990, sometimes
it is 1989.
Dodie says the copy of the degree arrived
at her home
at the end of 1990, a few months after the
three
professors supposedly flew to LV. I'm glad
that we
finally have a definitive , on the record
statement
about exactly when you earned the doctorate.
Now we
can move on to other things. As for the P&P
records, they show that you had a full time
job in Las Vegas from 88-90, so whether the
degree was earned in 89 or 90, the same pertinent
questions apply.
DB: No confusion from
any quote I have ever provided to the public...none.
1989. I received the cert from them in 1990,
but it was eraned in 1989. One problem with
taking information from the internet, is
sometimes sacrificing accuracy. Being that
it was not my report, nor my inaccuracies,
I find no need to argue about it.
6. George said that the SUNY
said "no way."
Correct tack from them...you
better believe it...as if they ever say "yes
way" they are so sued!
GK: I'm not sure who would
sue the school if it acknowledged that Dan
was a student. I hope someone could explain
this. Surely the secret government would do
something more dramatic than a mere lawsuit.
I have a fairly thorough log of my conversations
with the university and will make this material
public in the near future. They emphatically
state that Dan was never a student, was never
a doctoral candidate, was never there. This
is the view of the Registrar's Office, the
Graduate Studies Department, the Public Information
Office, and the chairmen of the biology and
genetics programs. One explanation for this
is that the records were erased and the school
was ordered to keep its mouth shut. Another
explanation is that Dan was never there. Take
your pick. Occam's Razor comes to mind.
One of the most interesting
points made to me in the last week is that
Stony Brook (two words, by the way) does not
offer graduate-level courses on weekends,
at least not in the hard-science disciplines
that Dan claims. As a state school, SB's only
weekend course offerings are in subjects that
serve working adults who are seeking a career
change. They have a few business classes and
a few nursing classes, and that's it. When
I asked if it is possible for someone to earn
a PhD in microbiology and/or genetics by taking
only weekend classes, they laughed out loud.
This is one of the top research universities
in the world. They took offense at the proposition
that someone could waltz in on weekends and
earn a doctorate, especially since classes
in those subjects are not offered on the weekends.
My opinion about the PhD
controversy has been expressed in great detail
elsewhere. I asked for someone to step forward
to offer a rebuttal view to the many questions
that persist. No one has stepped up to that
plate. Even ardent supporters of Dan's story
must admit that they have to accept most of
this on faith. It flies in the face of everything
we all know about graduate school, and I do
not think it is unfair or out of line to suggest
that the burden of proof is on the folks who
are championing this scenario.
One simple way to move the
discussion to another level would be to produce
the diploma. We've all seen the photos in
the park. Why not produce it? I tend to believe
Dodie when she says she saw a diploma of some
kind. Obviously, Deb and Marcia did too. Since
the diploma is not available for inspection,
the rest of us are unable to determine whether
it is legit or not. I suppose the response
is that all will be revealed next year. Okay,
we can all wait. But I would add this--once
the debriefing is unveiled to the world, I
hope that the diploma is also released as
well, athough I have my doubts.
As for the impending affadavits
from people who will
verify Dan's connection to SUNY, I look forward
to reading them. I hope they are more substantive
than mere assertions from people who say they
called the school and were told on the phone
that Dan had been a student. I made that same
call in 1994 and was told there were no such
records. Much has been made of the evidentiary
value of sworn affadavits, too much, I'd say.
Making a sworn statement to a notary about
something that is not in dispute in a court
of law is pretty weak. If I made a statement
to a notary that I am a visitor from Neptune,
that I robbed banks , have two wives, and
work as a hitman for the Illuminati, what
is the risk if I am lying? If I were on trial
for being an unregistered Neptunian bigamist
bank robber, a sworn statement might matter
since it would subject me to possible perjury
charges. If I made the same assertions in
a courtroom while under oath, the same thing
would apply, but who really cares about sworn
statements that carry no risk? I posit this
in the interests of a fair and open exchange
and am willing to listen to contrary views.
Produce an affadavit from
a former classmate or lab partner or professor
or school janitor. Let's hear from someone
who saw Dan at SUNY. This is not an unreasonable
request. As I have stated previously, there
were only a handful of doctoral candidates
in genetics during the period when Dan was
supposedly at SUNY. Anyone who is reading
this can check the online records for themselves.
The names are all on the SUNY website. If
Dan's supporters want to prove this part of
the story, please look at these names and
tell us which of them remembers seeing Dan
in a single class.
This isn't hard. If it is important for your
case, then get on it. I don't think it is
unreasonable to raise this issue and I have
to believe that even those > of you who are
in Dan's corner must have asked these same
questions in your own minds from time to time.
Where is a single witness who can confirm
he was ever on that campus? You can produce
as many affadavits as you like from people
who say they called the school, but there
is no doubt whatsoever that such statements
fall far short of actual proof. I will make
this promise---if any such witness comes forward,
I will report it, assuming that there is reaonable
proof that the witness was ever at SUNY himself
(or herself.)
DB: Again, I didn't
read the entire reply from George here...as
I am busy... but to the question of who
would be sued if they were to acknowledge
their lie... I'll sure as hell find someone.
As to my attendance, that will be explained,
but looking for a prosaic answer here...is
an error in method.
7. George got Bob Lazar's
position, who said it was crap.
Wrong. In Bob's response he
said (a) he never met me "aka knuckle-head"
and (b) he never worked at Tonopah. That's correct,
I believe! (but I liked the knuckle-head line!
) ...and I wonder where George got the bad info?
I saw someone who looked like Bob Lazar one
time out there, but I never identified him,
have never met him, and have never said he worked
at Tonopah...the DIA guys who now say they can
fly you to Planet Serpo claimed that, I believe.
You will find no such quotes from me, anywhere.
Bob was prejudiced with the double lie first,
that I allegedly said I knew him and that he
worked at Tonopah, then what else is he going
to say? ...that the rest must be too! An honest
reaction by someone fed an initial set of inaccurate
information.
GK: I did not tell Bob Lazar
that Dan claimed to have known him. Nor did
I tell him that Dan personally said that the
two of them worked together at Tonopah. But
if Dan is going to claim total ignorance of
any such claims made on his behalf, then I
would have to say he is being a bit sly or
disingenuous. I have the somewhat lengthy
email--it's the same one that asserts that
I had a copy of the travel itinerary which
proved that Dan was on the passenger list
for flights to and from A51. The letter alleges
that Bob and Dan were both at Tonopah, that
they were both part of the same disclosure
program, and that Bob worked on "avionics"
while at TTR, which is where Dan signed the
nondisclosure form that has been widely distributed.
Since Lazar is the first
person to publicly describe a below-ground
facility at Papoose Lake, aka S-4, and since
his claims have been selectively used to bolster
parts of Dan's own story, I thought it would
be interesting to hear what he thinks of the
larger story. I don't know what Planet Serpo
has to do with this, but it isn't something
that I find credible, nor have I ever mentioned
it to Bob or anyone else.
I used only the broadest
description of Dan's claims to Bob, and I
requested that he take a look at the Burisch
website before our interview. There was no
need to prompt him or to shade the questions.
I only asked him one--what is your general
reaction to the story as you understand it.
At some point, I will figure out a way to
release his entire statement, but the soundbite
included in my report is fairly evident. J-Rod?
Angels? The Ganesh particle? His opinion is
that it is total and complete bullshit and
that anyone who believes it should be ashamed
of themselves. Months ago, I told a wide audience
that any assertion about Bob being at Tonopah
or that he ever worked in "avionics"
was a complete fabrication. If you didn't
take my word for it, we have now heard it
first hand. Lazar isn't hard to find. If you
think I am distorting his view, contact him
yourself. Whereas Bob's story has been used
judiciously to support bits and pieces of
Dan's claims in the past, I suspect that he
will now be characterized as untrustworthy
by some of those same people. To those who
choose to believe Dan no matter what, this
won't mean much. To the larger audience of
people who are still trying to make up their
minds, come to your own conclusions.
DB: Again...a long reply
from George, my statement holds as Bob Lazar
indicated both of those things (Tonopah
and not knowing me) as a concrete portion
of his answer. Further, there have been
such allegations (ref Tonopah) on the net,
relating to Bob Lazar and me. As for claims,
I think we should stick to actual quotes
made by me, rather than groping in the dark
through the web, in hopes of finding the
right sticker or evidence. Anyone can write
a letter and there are many out there mixing
up the situation as much as possible to
cause harm. It just depends on what people
wish to report on. In this case, an insinuation
of relationship between Lazar and myself
was present. I have never met Bob, flown
with him, or worked with him. That's pretty
simple.
8. George said I have DVD's
for sale.
Wrong. The particular DVD
issue that he showed was Bill Hamilton's.
I have never received one thing from them,when
they were for sale.
GK: Look at the tape of
the story, Dan. I did NOT say that YOU are
selling dvds or videos. I said that you have
a worldwide following, and to demonstrate
that point, I listed the following; "websites
and message boards, books, audio tapes and
DVD's for sale. He has a publicist and a biographer,
a high profile for a secret scientist."
Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say
that you are selling vd's, nor did I say that
you are profiting from such sales, so you
are refuting something that was not asserted
in the first place. The point of the list
is that you are pretty well known for someone
who is working in a secret program. Of course
the DVDs are being sold by Bill Hamilton.
The shot that was used in the story shows
as much. Personally, I don;'t think there
i anything wrong with the sale of such merchadise
and I'm sorry to hear that you are not getting
a cut of the action. Hopefully, you will get
a real agent before the movie deal is finalized.
DB: You are right, that
you did not "say it," but slants
cause implications. I have no real problem
with this portion, but as you say, you have
the tape. I am not going to shadow box over
insinuations. It's really okay by me.
9. George got retired John
Alexander to say "highly improbable"
about me.
Cool! I'll have another Bigelow,
I hear John's employer will like that.
[editor's note: a "Bigelow"
as used by Dan probably refers to the coffee
by that name, a picture of which is to be found
elsewhere on this site.]
GK: I don't know what that
means. John doesn't work for Bigelow and hasn't
for years. I asked him for his opinion about
the likelihood that someone like Dan could
leak secrets from such a classified program
over a long period of time and still be alllowed
to carry on. You all know what the answer
was.
DB: The likelihood is
100%, as I am telling the truth. Others
have already asked, what would be that same
likelihood, reference Lazar.
10. George mentioned that
the UNLV Alumni journal doesn't check post-grad
status. News to me...but...better check with
Deb as she is the one who put me in it.
GK: No matter who put you
into the guide, it has been used many times
as a form of proof about your PhD. UNLV officials
told me, in writing, that there is no attempt
by the Alumni Guide to verify post-graduate
credentials or claims. If you told them you
have eight kids and won the Nobel Prize, they
would print it, so long as they knew that
you had an undergraduate degree. If we agree
that the mention of the PhD in the alumni
guide is no proof of anything, then perhaps
it will soon be removed from the website,
no matter who submitted it in the first place.
It's similar to the oft-cited inclusion in
the US Navy Memorial Foundation log. This
too has been prominently featured on various
cites as a form of proof of Dan's military
credentials. When I informed the foundation
that Dan was never in the military, the spokesman
explained that the foundation does not attempt
to verify the military credentials of those
who send in a check and a photo.As I recall,
the explanation from Dan's camp was that the
application haad been sent in by Dodie Crain,
without anyone's knowledge. Okay, so why was
it presented as a form of documentation on
the same website if you knew that it didn't
mean anything? Just asking.
DB: It was in fact my
Mom who sent in others, and Deb still others.
I find no problem with their doing so, but
have equally little passion for it.
What I liked about the story
was that George showed film from the Straight
from the Hart Award. It was nice seeing "my
kids" again. He came down pretty hard on
Deborah. That is for her to handle. He showed
dondep's website. Then he indicated I got my
B.A. from UNLV in Psych.
Correct.
GK--I don't think I came
down too hard on Deborah, but viewers can
judge for themselves. I felt that since Deborah
has worked for MGM Mirage for so many years,
it might interest them to know that she has
signed "a sworn affadavit" that
she is an employee of MJ 12. MGM executives
were unaware of this, but were interested
to learn about it.
DB: Neither do I, I was
really reflecting how she reported she felt.
But, that is her problem.
Then...
HOLD YOUR BREATH...
George Knapp COMPLIMENTED
ME! He said I was 'very
interesting and intelligent.' He then said that
quite a bit of my
"case" was not verified and he called
for information if it can be brought
forward. It will be, next year in the debriefing
and even some before.
HE WAS NICE TO ME!
Well...you know what George...nice
goes both ways...my door to a possible interview
next year...
IS OPEN!
Even given the wrong information,
HIS PIECE ON ME, FROM HIS PRESENTATION POINT
OF VIEW WAS NICE!
GK: I said a couple of things
at the end. One is that I feel Dan is a smart
guy. I do. Two is that I think this is an
interesting story. There's no question about
that, even though I have serious reservations
about it, as everyone knows. Three is that
I am willing to listen to any evidence that
surfaces in the future. Also true. I have
said this all along, and I mean it. Dan is
amazed that I was "nice" to him.
Okay, I'm glad it is being viewed that way.,
but being nice or not so nice never entered
the picture. Put it this way---what I say
in email exchanges is one thing. I am more
than willing to mix it up, especially when
someone is coming after me on a personal and
professional level. I acknowledge that I
In the interest of honest
reporting and journalism, tenses are important,
so are words describing status.
have dished out my share
of invective. What I say on the air is another
matter. Despite the very harsh evaluations
of my abilities and motives that have been
widely disseminated for many months now, I
take my job very seriously. My opinion about
this story has not changed, but I'm not going
to put something on the air that is vindictive
and unfair. If I did that, I would not have
survived this long in a very competitive business.
I believe the story is better told if it includes
many viewpoints. This isn't a concession--it's
fundamental. If there is a chance for an interview
next year, put me on the list. It should be
obvious that I am not going to pull any punches
and will ask pointed questions. If Dan answers
them honestly, I will report them honestly.
Everyone who is reading this knows that I
think the story is an elaborate fiction. Anyone
who knows me on a personal level also knows
that if my suspicions are proven wrong, I
will report it, whether it's about this or
something else. I have no problem with backtracking
IF there is something to hang my hat on. To
date, I haven't seen it. Prove me wrong and
I will report the same.
One final note, I've heard
some feedback about my suggestion regarding
a possible longer-format program. In the opinion
of some, I have presented this possibility
as some sort of teaser or ruse. Whoever said
this doesn't know me at all. )
Dan Burisch, if you want
to call me, you have my number, and from what
I've heard, my address as well.
---> Naaaaaaa. <---
In the meantime, I am willing
to exchange views on these issues with anyone,
anytime, anywhere.
DB: For now, I am strictly
concentrating on my debriefing. Should the
opportunity present itself, next year, and
be recommended, I'll have no problem with
a sit-down. For now, there will be no further
"mixing" from me, as I have a
legal arrangement with Mr. Garner not to
give interviews right now. GEORGE I APPRECIATE
YOUR REPORT AND I ANTICIPATE AN EXCITING
YEAR, NEXT YEAR. MAY GOD BLESS AND KEEP
YOU.
EDIT: ADDITION CONCERNING
GK'S STATEMENT ABOUT DEBORAH:
Here is what GK says:
GK--I don't think I came
down too hard on Deborah, but viewers can
judge for themselves. I felt that since Deborah
has worked for MGM Mirage for so many years,
it might interest them to know that she has
signed "a sworn affadavit" that
she is an employee of MJ 12. MGM executives
were unaware of this, but were interested
to learn about it.
DB: I just now read
the affidavit. Deborah never said she was
"employed" by anyone. She said
"became an agent for" and she
also said "...and remained an active
agent until 2005, when I retired."
