Searching For the Truth: Defending My Credibility

An editorial by Dennis G. Balthaser

Searching For the Truth: Defending My Credibility

(Always Telling the Truth, Means Never Having to Remember Anything)


For several years now I have considered myself fortunate to not have been exposed to many serious attacks by skeptics, debunkers, critics or witnesses for the research I've done on this controversial subject of UFOs. Whenever one chooses to be involved in a subject such as the Roswell Incident and other high profile UFO cases, government cover-ups, conspiracies, etc., you have to expect from time to time that your research will be questioned. I've always accepted that possibility, and tried to emphasize that my objective in being public through lectures or editorials is to enlighten people using the information gathered from witnesses and the research that has been done by myself and other investigators. I'd be the first to recognize that any information has to be verified and there are numerous ways of doing that, which would be considered ethical, honest and respectful. Unfortunately there are other ways also, which I have recently experienced. These include; not confronting me directly, questioning my credibility, or worse, ignoring questions I've asked and being selective in responding to those questions.

Recently I have been "sucked in" to the latter, and I refuse to lower my standards of research to those individuals. This is not an editorial that I looked forward to composing, but due to certain events that recently transpired, I felt it was time to comply with the quote I use in my lectures, editorials and have on my web site

"Always Telling the Truth, Means Never Having to Remember Anything".

I will mention names in this editorial because that's my style, and those mentioned, have the right to dispute or challenge what I'm saying, keeping in mind that I will be quoting from correspondence I have in my file from them. The Ufology community in my opinion has no need or use for the methods demonstrated by certain individuals, to accomplish their goal, (whatever that goal might be). To quote a few of Stanton Friedman's comments about these type individuals:

"If you can't attack the data, attack the people. It's easier".

"Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up".

I'm also well aware that I will not, (by writing this editorial), change the methods used by certain individuals, nor can I stop them from doing what they do. I can let you know however, that it does exist and that I am personally not pleased with it. These tactics for obtaining or disseminating information are by no means limited to only researchers either. There are many cases of witnesses embellishing their information or refusing to answer key questions presented to them, and knowingly not telling the truth. So those of us that try to remain objective, truthful and trustworthy, continually battle with the other ones that choose to ignore questions, or give responses that have very little if any factual basis. Maybe they are part of the overall plan, to keep the water muddied and the real truth from being known. In this editorial I will refer to three individuals that have demonstrated some of these methods clearly to me recently.

The first is a method used by a co-researcher, which I approve of and even though we have major differences of opinion, we were able to communicate without insinuating any charges or implications against each other and discussing facts in a method beneficial to each of us.

Karl Pflock is a well-known researcher and author that has over the years made statements about the Roswell Incident that I have not always agreed with. At the March, 2002 Aztec, New Mexico Symposium, I had an opportunity to discuss several of those points with Karl privately, since I was Master of Ceremonies and we were both lecturer's for that event. I presented my "Interception" lecture about my experience with alleged United States Air Force, Office of Special Investigation agents preventing me from obtaining a piece of metal from the Roswell craft, when I traveled to Oklahoma in June 1997, to obtain it. In that lecture, I mention that one of the agents told me "they were headquartered at Langley, Virginia" and in my lecture I comment, "we all know that Langley is the home of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)". After my presentation, Mr. Pflock came up to me and we discussed the fact that Langley Virginia and Langley Air Force Base are two separate agencies located in two different geographical locations in Virginia. I agreed, and informed Karl that I would make that change in my lecture for future presentations. My point being that Karl Pflock and I were able to agree in a respectful manner, with no accusations toward me or the information I presented, by confronting the issue with each other directly. I respect that. Mr. Pflock and I still may not agree on what happened in Roswell in 1947, but on this particular issue we were able to resolve it in a gentlemanly fashion, by Karl coming directly to me with his concern about my statement.

On the other side of my concern, Phil Klass, another well-known researcher and author, who many of us have referred to for years as a "debunker or skeptic" (and we need those), has chosen to take a method I personally do not approve of. I had never been in direct communication with Klass in all the years I've been researching Roswell and other UFO related topics. All of a sudden out of the blue, on April 25, 2002, I receive an email from him complimenting me on my web site and he asked me three questions.

What prompted me to give up my position with the Roswell UFO Museum in 1998?

Did I first give my "Interception" lecture in October 1997 to a Roswell Museum Audience?

What was the reaction to my story by Roswell Incident "experts" such as Kevin Randle, Don Schmitt, Stan Friedman and others?

Rather odd questions I thought, since all were referring to something that happened to me 4 or 5 years ago. I responded honestly in a 2-page reply also asking him twice, "what prompted the questions from him"? I was even more surprised by his response; "many thanks for your prompt, candid reply." I challenged that response and requested a more detailed explanation from him, since I felt he was prying for some reason, after all the time that had elapsed since I left the museum or experienced the "Interception". His brief second reply indicated he had missed my questions. (As I mentioned before, some researchers and witnesses prefer to ignore specific questions, as Klass did in this case). He did say that he had only recently discovered my Roswell involvement, thanks to James Bond Johnson and my web site. James Bond Johnson took the photographs in General Ramey's office in 1947, while working for the Fort Worth Star Telegram. Bond had remarked in an email to me that, "Phil Klass was usually a pretty good researcher…but not perfect". I challenged that statement from Bond, because for years serious researchers have had a problem with Mr. Klass's debunking statements about Roswell and UFOs, as was apparent in some of the responses Klass had given to questions posed by Bond in earlier emails. Apparently Johnson forwarded my remarks to Klass, without the courtesy of informing me he had done so, and the prying by Klass began.

Klass also told me in subsequent emails that he was suspicious of my June (1997) Oklahoma "tale", and questioned my statements to him about how many people had heard the telephone tape recordings I have from the "Interception" experience, and how many people I said were present in the Oklahoma restaurant when I met the alleged USAF, OSI agents in June 1997.

A few days later I was made aware of the fact that not only was my 1997 "Interception" experience being challenged by Klass, with no knowledge of what is on the telephone recordings I have, or the fact that he wasn't in the restaurant in Oklahoma for the 3 ½ hour meeting with the alleged agents as I was. Klass contacted Nuclear Physicist and researcher Stanton Friedman, asking him, "what is your assessment of the June 1997 incident in Oklahoma tale told by Dennis Balthaser at his October 1997 lecture at the Roswell Museum?" And " Do you believe his tale or not?" Mr. Friedman, who knows the details of the "Interception" responded that, "he does indeed believe my tale of what happened". Klass followed up that email to Mr. Friedman, with another stating, "I'm NOT clear as to whether you believe Dennis Balthaser is a hoaxer or telling the truth about his meeting with the two USAF, OSI agents for 3+ hours in a public restaurant where they allegedly talked about Top Secret Info." Mr. Friedman's response again stated that, he is convinced that I'm telling the truth about my experience and he has no way of knowing whether the people with whom I met worked for USAF, OSI, which coincides with my statements at the end of my lecture.

I don't know who I dealt with for a 6 month period on the telephone and in person, nor what their motive was, but I do know that what I reported on my web-site and in the "Interception" lecture is factually what I saw and heard, from 5 or 6 different individuals claiming to be United States Air Force, Office of Special Investigation agents, and I was not able to meet the people I intended to meet or get the piece of metal I went to Oklahoma to get.

In conclusion, Mr. Klass has again demonstrated that it's easier to attack the person than the data by insinuating that my experience is a "tale", and questioning others about whether I might be a hoaxer or not telling the truth, even though he wasn't in Oklahoma with me when I experienced the "Interception". I stand firmly on my credibility and respectfully request that it not be challenged unless factual material can be provided to prove it otherwise and then present it to me openly, not blindsided.

Dennis G. Balthaser


[Article used with the permission of Dennis G. Balthaser]

Copyright © UFOINFO
Articles are Copyright of the Author or Compiler