so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby James Carlson » Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:20 am

A lot of folks might find some of this offensive, because they like to believe that privacy is a commodity worth respecting unless you happen to be part of the military industrial complex, or a member of the Unites States Air Force. As for me, I don't give a damn. Privacy is whatever you can keep away from your creditors -- everything else is worth publishing.

I can remember hearing from Frank Warren a couple years ago; he insisted that Hastings, Salas, et al aren't in it for the money, because "there's not that much money to be made." At the same time, however, he pointedly refused to discuss how much money was being made. As for Hastings and Salas, while both men are willing to lie about almost anything under the sun, they also refuse completely to discuss how much money is being made. In fact, that seems to be the one subject every one of these UFO conspiracy resource nuts seem to have in common: they very pointedly refuse to talk about how much money they're getting out of it all.

Well, I want to know how much they're making. I know for a fact that both men collect donations, and that Salas is associated with at least two 301(c) organizations, which means the groups are legally free from paying taxes and can collect tax free donations -- all for discussing UFO conspiracies. I have to admit, in a world with today's economy while the country's being split apart into tax-the-rich or cut medicaid factions, it's pretty sickening that folks like Greer, etc., who run these groups for their own benefit while providing little to nothing at all in return, sell their videos, and slime their way across the internet don't pay any taxes at all on the donations sad faced fools and tools send them for their educational services that amount to a hill of beans and a crapload of lies. That's one of the reasons I made the decision a long time ago not to make any money off of this roller-coaster ride, preferring instead to give everything away to anybody who wants to read it. As far as I'm concerned, it's always been a moral issue.

So I want to know how much money they're really making, and the fact that they refuse to discuss it just makes me even more curious.

If you go to http://infofeeder.info/latest-informati ... orgettable, you'll discover that

John Alexander and Jim Marrs have one of the most enlightening conversations about UFO secrecy that has ever been recorded. These two highly knowledgeable experts elevate the whole debate to a new level. Why does UFO secrecy exist—if it does? How does the classification system work, and does it hide important secrets about UFOs and aliens, and if so, can those secrets ever be released? And why does the scientific community universally deny the existence of UFOs and aliens?

You'll also discover that "You will never have heard a better discussion of these questions anywhere."

Having a fairly substantive background in military classified materials protocol, this ruffled my curiosity up a little bit, so I followed the link to check it out, at which point I was told that I had to subscribe to Anne Strieber's "Unknown Country" service (yes, it's the same Strieber) in order to get access to that interview discussion. And that's not cheap:

Subscription prices: 1 month recurring $3.95 per month. 3 month recurring $11.95 per 3 months. 6 month recurring $19.75 per 6 months. Annual recurring $39.50 per year. 1 year nonrecurring $47.50. 2 year nonrecurring. $79.00.

These hypocrites are telling the world that the United States government, in collusion with intelligence sources all over the world, have perpetrated the most outrageous crime against the world's population in the history of human secrecy, and they want you to know about it, and to get organized, and to lobby your Congress today in order to bring an end to that secrecy, and they're going to tell you exactly how to go about doing that (but it's gonna cost you).

Meanwhile, I've had people accuse me of being in the CIA because I was giving stuff away.

Go check out: http://www.unknowncountry.com/subscribe#ixzz1KCRm0afZ for your own amusement.

Various sources have insisted that Robert Salas was a paid consultant for the those making the UFO invasion movie Battle: Los Angeles. This was apparently due to his "expertise" on the subject of alien attacks of U.S. military forces. He's now actively attempting to create a UFO money machine by granting lectures to anybody who will pay him the expected stipend to do so, and he's had his name attached (for a price, I'm sure) to a number of money-making opportunities, just as he did with Battle: Los Angeles. Oddly enough, however, nobody is talking about it, so I assume the money just comes in.

The question is, how much money? And why do they all refuse to discuss it? I have no problem telling people how much money I make, nor what I do to get it. And unlike Donald Trump, I'm not even running for office. So what exactly did Salas do, and how much was he paid to do it for Battle: Los Angeles?

And what's Robert Hastings pulling down these days? I spoke with a professor and chair at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at one of the schools he lectured at, and this man told me that although the school would have preferred a more "educational" lecturer be presented, the choice of Hastings had nothing to do with the school itself. "The students use some student fee money for entertainment events and this is one of them." He added, however, that the choice of Hastings "is (maybe?) a step up from the psychic a couple years ago." To an extent, it seems that at this particular school, the choice of Hastings was considered, at least by those paying for it, to be "entertainment" separate from and not interfered with by the faculty or administration of the school, and not the educational experience Hastings himself insists that he provides. It certainly wasn't a lecture he provided to the school at the school's request.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find out how much money was spent on Hastings' lecture. I would have like to comapare the cost with whatever the psychic charged, but nobody in this field seems to want to discuss the cost of it, or its comparable worth to anything else provided in such a luctrative market system. I can say with some certainty, however, that Salas and Hastings are being paid for "something", and they don't want to talk about how much money that "something" is actually worth.

If anybody is able to determine how much money people like this are being paid for the crap they are willingly unloading on a public prepared to believe literally anything they say, whether they can back it up or not, and how much of it is "donations", "subscriptions", or simply "faith-based fees", I would love to have you provide that information here in this thread.

I just think there's something horribly wrong with those who claim a higher moral context is necessary for humanity to reach that next plateau of evolutionary advancement, and they're perfectly willing to provide you with the information necessary to get there, but only if you in turn are willing to meet their price for it. And the fact that they refuse to discuss such matters tends to suggest, at least to me, that they don't want to screw up their little cash cow marketplace. So how much are they really worth? And what have they done to earn it?

I suspect that any honest and accurate answers might be more enlightening than the garbage they've been shilling on the side...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby chrLz » Fri Apr 22, 2011 8:56 am

Hmm. While I understand your interest (and in a moment I will admit to some hypocrisy!), I'm not sure this is a good path to go down.

It just seems a little ad-hominesque to me, ie it's pretty close to attacking the person rather than the facts, and .. well, there will always be the gullible, and those who will fleece them. I think the best way to fight that is to make sure that even the most gullible can, if they want to, find out the truth, therein avoiding - or at least understanding - the fleecing.

Having said that and going a little offtopic, I will gleefully admit to spending a fair bit of time investigating the $6000-plus that was collected by Cliff Carnicom and Will Thomas for the purpose of in-situ sampling of 'chem'-trails. Such sampling never took place (of course they couldn't actually do that, as it would prove that chem-trails are just con-trails.. thereby removing their income source). That money is unaccounted for, to the best of my knowledge (Cliff, Will, please feel free to come over and explain..).

But that was a specific appeal for funds in support of their cause - maybe it's a fine line between that and trying to gather information about income from books, seminars, etc, but it still makes me a bit uneasy.

After all, they are just selling stuff, and as long as the 'stuff' is provided, then it's a 'fair deal' in most respects (except that of honest representation)...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby Zep Tepi » Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:32 am

It would be interesting to know how much these people are making of the back of hoaxes and non-information. However, it will pale in comparison to the millions (literally) being made by the likes of Scammers Inc.

Memes 'R' Us is a lucrative business to be in.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby ryguy » Fri Apr 22, 2011 12:54 pm

Absolutely - I keep reading where people write, "What's the big deal, hoaxes are harmless. Why do you care?"

They are absolutely NOT harmless.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:21 pm

ryguy wrote:Absolutely - I keep reading where people write, "What's the big deal, hoaxes are harmless. Why do you care?"

They are absolutely NOT harmless.


agree with this, during my time looking into the judy faltskog / wayne herschel saga, i discovered these people had caused a lot more damage than just financial to various peoples lifes, which is why i devoted so much of my time last year to doing as much damage as i could to their hoax claims and reputations...

many of these people cause no end of problems by not only fleecing but praying on and feeding the delusions of many a vulnerable person out there.

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby jeddyhi » Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:26 pm

Excellent post!

It has always been my opinion that exopolitics is nothing more than a determined effort to make money off of the field of Ufology and any gullible souls that populate it rather than any kind of realistic search for truth.

The way Michael Sala appeared to believe the 'Source A/UN Secret meeting' hoax with such conviction made me realize that the truth may not be nearly as important to expolitics as is expanding the membership and increasing the profits.

The Exopolitic Institute is a non-profit organization. But being headquartered in Hawaii, I wonder if someone isn't making some kind of profit from the tax free donations they acquire.

I've often wondered about the money being made by some of the "stars" of Ufology. How much does Linda Moulton Howe make? Michael Sala? Alfred Webre? The Streibers?.......I think some people would be surprised to to know that truth!

Nothing like a successful Snake Oil Salesman. :roll:
User avatar
jeddyhi
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:32 pm
Location: Ohio,USA

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby James Carlson » Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:54 am

These are all great points, and I expected no less around here. But this is the problem I have: these people are claiming that their goals and their methods are fundamentally altruistic. That's the whole basis of the 301(c) groups that Salas is involved with. Hastings insists that he's on a mission, like the Blues Brothers or something. Every one of these guys tries to convince the world of the special nature inherent to both their blues mission and their unique vision, and they all say that the motivation isn't money, and that the money, in fact, is minimal. And yet, none of them are willing to tell you how much money is actually being made. Standard public relations alone tells you that if you're making such claims, you cancel the suppositions and any veracity they may possess by opening up your books; you don't have secrets if you're trying to accomplish goals necessary for the common good. That's why we like our political candidates to be open and easy to reach regarding their paycheck and who writes it. This is standard public relations, and represents such a common redemption of personal economy that the phrase "Is he getting paid to say that?" brings in over 2,500 hits on Google. And they aren't all talking about Ryan Seacrest either.

One of the problems here is communication. People like Salas and Hastings insist that their unique vision of the world is so important that it needs to be communicated to the greatest extent possible in order to galvanize public concern, rally the troops, and turn each individual into a little lobbyist Abramoff in order to effect change in Washington, DC -- change that establishes disclosure as a result of stressing the issue of national security. They have always affirmed the necessity of this. Getting rid of UFO secrecy is and has been their primary goal for years. They don't give a damn about proving UFOs exist or even whether UFOs actually prove the existence of life elsewhere in the universe -- they just hate the idea of such information being classified. If they were actually concerned about the existence of UFOs or about life in the universe, they wouldn't be out there telling so many provable lies; they would be trying to find real proof, or attempt to make valid arguments that will convince those people who actually make decisions that have some bearing on the subject -- people like Congressmen, for instance. But they aren't doing this. Instead, they're going for the big numbers, i.e., the people who vote for Congressmen, such people being, on the whole, notably easier to convince.

When you're going after the big numbers, you're going after people who aren't forced to debate the questions you raise, as Congressmen would be. If your lies and stories of aliens from outer space are as easy to disprove as we've repeatedly shown them to be, they will never make it past organized debate and discussion. NEVER. The only way to get such goals past this inherent-to-the-issue obstacle is to bring in the larger numbers necessary to effect a vote, thereby getting past the debate. After all, even Congressmen will ignore debate and discussion when the voters press them for it. And if that's your goal, honesty isn't that necessary -- not when you've got a voter pool of 200-million men and women in the United States alone, one-third of which believe in UFOs. And that's just the believers; how many Americans are right on the edge of belief that hasn't yet materialized, but are willing nonetheless to jump off of that edge if they had more information -- information they'd be more than happy to examine if it originated within the U.S. Department of Defense? How many of these registered voters are more than willing to accept without examination any "evidence" provided in support of their belief system? And how many are capable of lobbying Congress to act in support of those beliefs? I think it goes without saying that many members of Congress will act contrary to their own beliefs if their constituents demand it of them. UFOlogists alone will always fail to reach these goals. But UFOlogists supported by a voter pool is an entirely new species of animal.

We consistently discover, however, that those who recruit lobbyists to act on their behalf have their own secrets, and they are very concerned with maintaining that secrecy, particularly when it comes to how much money they are making off of the deal. I know it's a vulgar topic, believe me. But at this point, I simply don't care. Vulgarity doesn't bother me half as much as some holier than thou thickhead like Robert Hastings coming on board with smiles and not much else to credit his worthless vision of the world -- a vision easily shown to be built on the deceptive nuances of illogic and lies, none of which he even bothers to defend any more. It's so much easier to simply shoot the critic.

We have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are complete and utter frauds who have authored an extremely wide-ranging UFO hoax. There are no doubts here. Present the information to a jury, and that jury will always reach the same conclusion, regardless of the defense they try to raise or otherwise muster. And the only redeeming factor that can be tossed into any possible explanations for doing so, resides within their motivations. Are they acting so abominably in order to effect the common good as American citizens, or are they doing so in order to make a fast buck? There are no other redeeming factors that need to be preserved. Proof of this is apparent with any examination of the strategies used to persuade those who are undecided; when so little attempt is made to convince doubtful individuals on the basis of merit, the suggestion that redeeming factors can actually be found disappears. Redeeming factors don't need to be explored if your audience doesn't care about such things.

For instance, it stands to reason that the more people you can convince, the more acceptable and persuasive your arguments will be considered. Salas and Hastings, however, aren't even attempting to convince those who are skeptical of their claims. It isn't necessary when you can collect without effort so many others who don't require proof at all. It's easier, in fact, to discredit skeptics as mentally incompetent and therefore lacking credibility than it is to actually support their own point of view by presenting valid arguments intended to convince those who initially doubt such claims. After all, those who doubt aren't unreasonable; they simply demand more evidence than a promise of fealty. Salas and Hastings, however, don't bother to convince those who disagree with them, because they don't have to. The only effort necessary is to negate opposition in order to cancel the effect of opposing arguments while fulfilling the needs of their already established audience. Why make the effort to convince others if it isn't necessary? Why discipline yourself to make an honest analysis of your case when you don't have to? Persuasion is difficult; lying isn't.

The extent of "negating opposition", however, is a double-edged sword. When one is supremely confident that his claims can't be attacked on merit, one gets careless, and this is what both Robert Salas and Robert Hastings have done. They refused to believe that someone might actually contact their military witnesses and ask them what happened, and how accurate have Salas and Hastings reported the matter. Their apparent confidence, one based on arrogance alone, has, after all, denied them the exit strategy all wise men leave themselves: the step back maneuver, as in "I'm sorry, but I guess I was mistaken." The fact that neither Salas nor Hastings is prepared to take that step leaves them only one recourse if they truly intend to "negate opposition". And that's the attack strategy. Unfortunately, if you aren't terribly bright to start off with, your use of this strategy can have some rather self-defeating repercussions.

Robert Hastings, for instance, is now attacking his critics on the basis of a medical handicap; he's even gone so far as to invent a whole series of "medical research articles" in order to establish a relationship between epilepsy and violent, psychotic mania that doesn't actually exist, such an egregious assault that there are no mitigating factors to excuse him or to lighten the load of such ills upon his festering reputation. And yet there are people out there who will forgive him this and any other blatantly offensive act if he's doing it for the "right" reasons! And as long as he maintains this silly little facade regarding the special nature of the mission, the unique vision of the quest, and the necessity of utilizing any and all strategies imagineable in order to defeat those who maintain the secrecy of UFOs and the extent of their influence on the American way of life, his ready-made yet fatalistic audience is willing to allow any benefit resulting from any level of offense or bitter stupidity. But what if he's not doing it for all the "right" reasons?

You must understand that it's completely unbelievable to me how obscene this entire discussion has become. The only way to top it is to bring in the vulagarity represented by his paycheck, which is exactly what I intend to do. If he's doing this for the "right reason", than I want to be able to show that the "right reason" can be discovered in his freaking wallet. My needs are few, and my curiosity in this matter easily satisfied. They are either doing it for the benefit of the world, or they're doing it for themselves. The facts are plain: the two Bobs are utilizing ethically-based arguments that have ultimately rested on easily proven lies, insulting rhetoric, and reprehensible strategies that have been, to a great extent, forgiven due to their "highly ethical" motivation. There are people out in the big wide world today -- and I know this because I've spoken to them -- who are willing to forgive almost any callous and repugnant character flaw as "a necessary evil" effected to rid the world of a greater evil: UFO secrecy. But when you're talking about motivation, you're also talking about the possibility of recompense, and that demands more than just the silence you inevitably get when you ask "what are you guys pulling down? After taxes?"

If what they have to say is as important as they want the whole world to believe it is, than the issue of profit, not prophecy, cannot be ignored, particularly when they are claiming that the money to be made isn't terribly high, and for that reason isn't terribly important. After all, if it isn't high or important, than why keep it a secret?

By opening up the whole world to this vulgar and somewhat offensive discussion regarding the primary motivation of frauds and liars, my intent is far more ephemeral. Call it a "social experiment" if you like. I just want to know if the brainless clods who forgive one's reliance on the most offensive and uncommon of abuses will do so with equal ardor if they know how much money is being made. Does the importance of the message, a message thus far outweighed by the volume of its delivery, still enable true believers to forgive the most egregious use of strategic offense this conversation has yet produced if the motivation for doing so lacks the altruistic quality claimed? Has their blind refusal to examine the objects of their faith been dedicated not to men who are motivated by the inherent value of the message, but to men who are motivated by how much of it they can sell? It's all very simple really. Is the profit margin insufficient enough to preserve faith?

If your thoughts immediately reflect a vision of moneylenders at the temple of God, relax; you're forgiven...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby James Carlson » Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:26 am

This is just a little curiosity I noticed -- like a synchronicity or something -- just a short little coincidence to share. Robert Salas was a consultant for Battle: Los Angeles, right? I thought it odd, however, that Battle: Los Angeles was filmed in Bossier City, LA, which is where my Dad lives; nothing it seems can get past the fate police, yes? Bossier City is not tremendously large either...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby mosfet » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:31 am

“Are they acting so abominably in order to effect the common good as American citizens, or are they doing so in order to make a fast buck?”

As I understand it you can make money from a YouTube video by allowing advertising and apparently sharing in the revenue the advertising generates? I'm not sure how this works exactly but if true it is certainly an incentive for some CGI expert to make a "popular" video, say for example an alien abduction or a saucer landing etc.

So this would be an example where the major incentive was monetary, perhaps also some demonstration of CGI skills for future employment to pad the resume.

On the other hand someone who has a vision of the "public interest" the "common interest", the "greater good" can justify just about anything assuming that the means justifies the end and if in reaching that end involves monetary profit so be it.

Take for example someone with the belief that the government has an obligation to reveal everything it knows about UFOs. Further that the only way to stimulate such a revelation by the government is through congressional action. Congressional action occurs, if as has been mentioned, a significant voter interest can be generated and applied to individual congressmen through letters etc. With enough congressional interest the subject could become a serious topic.

So the "committed" individual may believe that in trying to accomplish the greater good by generating "information/interest" about aliens/UFOs, a distortion of the truth to some extent is acceptable as is some monetary gain to offset the individual effort.

This type of reasoning applies to other situations not necessarily having anything to do with aliens and UFOs. At the extreme we have examples such as Manson and Jim Jones and many others (jihad). Within the UFO community there was the Heaven's Gate debacle.

So rather than a dichotomy between monetary interests versus the concept of the common good, a sliding scale might be an appropriate model.

The other side to the equation is best summed up in PT Barnum's famous quote, paraphrasing here, "a sucker born every minute" (although that might be the exact quote I haven't bothered to look it up).

But then let's take the case of someone in the UFO community as a committed individual to the greater good, thinking the means justifies the ends and is willing to bend the truth.

I wonder if they ever consider the repercussions of their "trivial" deception that could far outweigh any perceived good or progress to the perceived goal -- disclosure (for example). Probably not.

And so it is, that not only within the UFO community, but in general we constantly come across people and groups and political agendas all with their own concepts of the public interest. And I guess that the more informed we are the less likely are we to stray down a vestigial path such as heaven’s gate or our current political/economic situation. So in that regard this discussion and this board have significant merit.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby Frank Stalter » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:48 am

I know a little about road show bookings and such so I'll share what I know with some general estimates. The road shows for UFO guys are generally the conferences, which would be a local promoter bringing in a handful or so "headliners," renting some space and promoting the show. The most recent one locally I think charged $30 for the day and drew 200+ so there's a gross of $6K. Maybe some charge more/draw better. Almost certainly, food, travel and lodging is covered, maybe the eats and bed are part of the deal with the hotel for the promoter. So I'm thinking a reasonable name can get maybe $500+ plus the chance to peddle any product they may have, book/DVD whatever. Someone like Friedman or Pope is obviously going to command more. If you're a proven draw, word gets around. If you can get a college booking, you'll get a much better price since schools have budgets for this sort of thing and they don't HAVE to turn a profit. Obviously, you can also hawk product through a website. I think a busy hustler may do two or three live appearances a month, maybe a lot less. I can't imagine much more. These guys aren't rock bands or stand-up comics. There's only so much demand to see them live. So depending on your definition of not very much money, that's probably accurate with some notable exceptions.
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby James Carlson » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:40 am

mosfet wrote:I wonder if they ever consider the repercussions of their "trivial" deception that could far outweigh any perceived good or progress to the perceived goal -- disclosure (for example). Probably not.

Interesting that you would focus on disclosure; I've been doing the same thing in response to recent calls for a Congressional investigation of the national security aspects of the UFO phenomena as a stepping stone to disclosure. As a result of this, I've reached the conclusion that a Congresional investigation would very likely sink for at least a generation any hopes of the disclosure currently under discussion. Congress doesn't simply collect stories as most of the UFO community does; an investigation is a direct implication of debate, and any debate will always need to focus on provable facts. And the facts indicate that there have been literally thousands of UFO hoaxes, God knows how many fake videos reaching an international audience, and the complete absence of anything approaching a standard of evidence agreed upon in advance. Of equal if not transcendant importance is the well-established need for secrecy in government. The fact that most of the sources of nearly all the classified materials for which disclosure is being demanded are under the control of the executive branch of the government, a quality that severely limits the options that Congress can resort to, leads me to believe that a Congressional investigation is the very last thing that those seeking disclosure should be demanding. It's like a man with a fever shooting himself with a .357 in the head in order to provide a little extra air flow, thereby cooling down his temperature. It would absolutely kill disclosure as an issue.

Of course, demanding such an investigation would put you on the short list of "who do ya trust" within the UFO proponents community. And "killing" the issue would give such individuals a life-long career opportunity unaffected by such an annoying little closure of the matter that disclosure actually represents. After all, the primary effect that disclosure would have on UFOlogy would be the loss of any need to make such demands. What exactly would they complain about if there was nothing to complain about? The high price of the government publications discussing released documents? these people need to put a little more thought into the repercussions of both Congressional debate and disclosure. I doubt they'd be satisfied with the results of either one.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby mosfet » Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:09 am

Well that's a pretty good summation of ufology, a quagmire, a never ending feedback loop, a whirlpool of deception spinning out profit for some, and naïve expectation for others.

So in this mealy of personal accounts, government intervention, Internet bulletin boards, average people looking for answers, and of course the gods of ufology, those who always seem to have a corner on the market with their inside information, all of this, no wonder nothing will ever come of it, especially "disclosure". So while at one time I thought there might come the unified theory of UFOs I now realize any knowledge to be gained would have to be the result of a personal effort. One must carefully pick and choose the tidbits of knowledge or information that seem most plausible and formulate their own opinion.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby Luck » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:57 pm

James Carlson wrote:Well, I want to know how much they're making. I know for a fact that both men collect donations, and that Salas is associated with at least two 301(c) organizations, which means the groups are legally free from paying taxes and can collect tax free donations -- all for discussing UFO conspiracies.


James (aka Rabbit with the big pointy teeth),
This may have already been a consideration, but some states require that non-profits be able to provide financial/income information and in some states anyone can make the request. Seems like a gimmee if these non-profits were created in states with disclosure laws.

Luck.

edit:
James,
I did an initial web search and as far as I can tell Frank Warren, Linda Moulton Howe and Robert Hasting (or associated organizations) have not filed for non-profit status. I was able to find CSETI and MUFON through guidestar.org. Strieber has a disclaimer on his website that donations to his website are NOT tax deductible. So although I understand your concerns about a fool and his money....
I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." (Calvin and Hobbes/Bill Waterson)
User avatar
Luck
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:19 am
Location: Midwest

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby James Carlson » Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:48 pm

Luck wrote:
James Carlson wrote:Well, I want to know how much they're making. I know for a fact that both men collect donations, and that Salas is associated with at least two 301(c) organizations, which means the groups are legally free from paying taxes and can collect tax free donations -- all for discussing UFO conspiracies.


James (aka Rabbit with the big pointy teeth),
This may have already been a consideration, but some states require that non-profits be able to provide financial/income information and in some states anyone can make the request. Seems like a gimmee if these non-profits were created in states with disclosure laws.

Luck.

edit:
James,
I did an initial web search and as far as I can tell Frank Warren, Linda Moulton Howe and Robert Hasting (or associated organizations) have not filed for non-profit status. I was able to find CSETI and MUFON through guidestar.org. Strieber has a disclaimer on his website that donations to his website are NOT tax deductible. So although I understand your concerns about a fool and his money....


Hi, Luck -- Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner -- I was on another thread for a bit, and at work. I should have been more specific above; I didn't mean to imply that all of the individuals above were associated with 301(c) groups, only Robert Salas. He's associated with two that I know of for a certainty, and these are the tax exempt groups I was talking about. All of them, however, accept donations and request them on their websites. They also request donations for temporary projects like the press conference they gave September 27, 2010 in Washington, DC. As you've noted, however, these are not tax exempt. The tax exempt groups Salas is associated with are Greer's Disclosure-based "Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence" in Asheville, North Carolina and the "Public Education and Empowerment Resource Service" in Berkeley, California. Both claim the status as educational organizations; my own research suggests that they fail to meet the fairly rigorous legal standards for such status by an educational organization, but while I have written up separate memorandums on the subject for the IRS, I'm also aware that a thorough investigation could easily take a couple of years. In other words, I don't expect anything to come of it anytime soon, although the IRS has assured me that an investigation is, apparently, in progress. I've considered posting both memos on Scrib'd as a single document, but I honestly haven't reached a decision as to whether or not that would be a good idea, as a lot of the discussion is very dry, legally-based reading, and I'm not sure anybody would actually take the time to look at it (and by "dry", I mean even more so than everything else I've written, so you can imagine the nodding off that would very likely result!).

Regardless, however, you're quite right about Frank Warren, Linda Moulton Howe and Robert Hastings, and if I've implied that they are also associated with tax exempt groups, I apologize completely. I've found no evidence that they have anything other than a correspondence-based relationship with any 301(c) organization, and there is, of course, nothing at all wrong with that or otherwise suspicious in any way. I am curious, however, about what you did find in regard to Robert Salas. You don't mention him, but you affirm that none of the others have actually filed for tax exempt status. Does this mean that you've discovered that Robert Salas has filed for such status? If so, I'm unaware of it, having discovered only a relationship established with the two groups I've named, neither of which is proprietary, although he jas been listed in an advisory capacity. Has he actually filed for such status under his own name? I would find that very interesting, if it's true, but I may be reading more into your response than you intended. I would be very interested in it if that's what he's done. It's very easy to show what a fraud he is, so if he's filed for the status on the basis of his Echo Flight and Oscar Flight claims having an educational value, that's an issue that definitely needs to be raised.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: so what are they pulling down? after taxes?

Postby Luck » Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:15 am

James Carlson wrote:Regardless, however, you're quite right about Frank Warren, Linda Moulton Howe and Robert Hastings, and if I've implied that they are also associated with tax exempt groups, I apologize completely. I've found no evidence that they have anything other than a correspondence-based relationship with any 301(c) organization, and there is, of course, nothing at all wrong with that or otherwise suspicious in any way. I am curious, however, about what you did find in regard to Robert Salas. You don't mention him, but you affirm that none of the others have actually filed for tax exempt status. Does this mean that you've discovered that Robert Salas has filed for such status?


I assumed that Robert Salas was involved with CSETI and I was able to access the IRS 990 for CSETI through guidestar.org, but I just glanced at it with the time I had. I didn't know the name of the other non-profit he was involved until you just named it above and I am more than willing to check it out this weekend when I have some time (and take a closer look at the 990's available).

Guidestar.org charges a hefty fee ($350/monthly) to access financials, but access to the 990s is free. I understand that persons may make a request directly to the non-profit (for a reasonable copy fee) for the financials; I don't know if this is a federal mandate or dependent on which state the non-profit operates out of. I suspect this a federal law, but would need to research further. Really, it would be financials you would want, as there should be some additional break-downs of expenses and the like (I used to review financials of non-profits occasionally in a prior job).
I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." (Calvin and Hobbes/Bill Waterson)
User avatar
Luck
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:19 am
Location: Midwest

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests

cron