Let’s look at one of his colleagues, whom this writer approached when it became evident that Mr. Knapp was interested in producing a smear, much as the one he now takes some credit for in helping to foist upon an innocent readership in the pages of “UFO Magazine” in late 2004. After the contretemps set off by Mr. Blair’s email to Mr. Knapp, I contacted Jon Ralston, another “reporter” for KLASTV whose primary area of expertise was ‘public affairs’. In fact, when one reads the accompanying blurb captioning his picture on the station’s website, one can’t help but believe that here might be an objective voice that could possibly do a more balanced story on the emerging Disclosure that the ‘controversial’ Dr Burisch is at the center of.

Mr. Ralston is described as the host of “Face to Face”, a daily public-affairs talk show on Las Vegas One (a sister station to KLASTV). A quick google search of his previous work shows that he has covered a number of political brouhahas in both local and Nevada state government. One would think that a story of these proportions would interest such a journalist, or at least elicit a courteous response to both a phone call and an email. After obtaining his cell phone number, this writer gave a short synopsis of the controversy over Dr. Burisch and the recent events prompted by Mr. Knapp, and left off with this website’s URL for a more detailed looksee were he show interest. This was followed up by the following email to him later that same day, Oct. 12th:

 

Dear Jon;
 
While you are taking some time to review the story at www.danburisch.info, I wanted to detail some of the background that you may not have time to find in the huge amount of material.  As I indicated on the phone, your colleague Mr. Knapp apparently had an early run-in with Dr. Burisch years ago, before he had been relieved of the strictures of his National Security oath, and was stone-walled by Dan at the time.  George may not have ever forgiven him for that slight, and it certainly seemed from his email to me of last year that he hadn't.  Dan never 'peddled' a story to anyone; he spoke honestly and truthfully to first Bill Hamilton and then myself, following our attempts to dig into this story.  Many 'whistleblowers' are of a cast that you may be familiar with in that they look for cover in the media to protect them from retribution for 'telling the truth' on power, but Dr. Burisch is of an entirely different species.  He does feel that "the more one knows, the more one owes", but to merely rush out to the nearest street corner and tell of the incredible secrets at the heart of the Coverup simply wouldn't do and often only serves to irritate the baser demographics.
 
I say all this because it may be that if you speak to George about this before looking into this independently, he may cast it as a case of 'being hounded by Burisch and his followers' when that simply isn't the case.  Mr. Knapp posted erroneously to an internet forum, through an intermediary, and made a statement about Dan's wife that she felt was quite slanderous in accusing her of having been convicted of trafficking in narcotics when it simply wasn't true. She felt that George was using the information to discolor and demean her husband's contributions, when in fact he has been at the very heart of the most incredible projects in the entire Coverup and is only now allowed to talk about them as part of a Disclosure effort agreed to at the recent T9 Treat signing. Despite the fact that ultimately Dr. Burisch's projects are the 'good side' of the black-ops community, there is still a dark side, but if we want real Disclosure we have to start somewhere and we certainly won't be allowed it if we foam at the mouth or scoff at the heel.  Now Mrs. Burisch is rightly wanting an apology from George or some form of redress from his superiors for having written misleading statements about her in the public realm, which is one of the principal reasons she swore out her own affidavit (a quick read of the opening Updates page at www.danburisch.info shows this).  The station management, after discussing a potential legal case with Mrs. Burisch, decided (from this writier’s understanding) to allow Mr. Knapp to do a story, but the word came back from the response he made to Mr. Blair that he was already casting this as a pleading effort on the part of Dr and Mrs Burisch when she would have simply accepted an honest and truthful retraction by him.
 
The story is, as you may have gathered, much bigger than whether Mrs. Burisch trafficked or witnessed a narcotics transaction.  Someone with the kind of public-affairs journalism that you seem to have exhibited in the past is better suited and hopefully more objective (while still maintaining a critical and skeptical eye, granted), and I hope you agree that this story is worthy of the public learning of it.  The fact that a number of 'patriotic insiders' have independently provided me with corroborative information, and continue to do so, is just one of the amazing features in this story.  I've had to use my discretion on more than one occasion to censor my own release of information. 

[following this was a short compendium of my email correspondence with Mr. Knapp from last year – 2004]
………………….

There you have it, Jon.  My intention isn't to sow any division between colleagues, and for that matter I have no idea if you are either close friends with George or even if you despise the man; the story is the key thing no matter what kind of relationship you have with him.  I hold nothing against him outside the possibility that his views may not be as unbiased as they should be to do justice to the story.
 
Please let me know if we can be of assistance, as we'll be receiving the Attorney General's response next Tuesday and then the real fireworks begin.
 
Regards,
 
Don Deppeller

 

Of course, I never received so much as a curt response such as “Not interested” or even “No comment”. To point out the obvious: the Affidavit of Dr. Dan Burisch of April 13th, 2005, made on our behalf, is an historic document in and of itself and would warrant a serious investigation by any alleged ‘public affairs’ journalist if the story had yet to become nationally known, but was even basic courtesy extended? No. Again, a prejudice that shows a failing grade in the efforts toward Disclosure. One more example of biased, arrogant and collusionary ‘journalists’. Some may argue that surely he may have had too many things to attend to? Apparently not, as he found time to discuss this with Mr. Knapp, as George so willingly states in his public post a few days later.

Given Knapp's words in his October 14th open letter, posted through a “guest” on the public forum of note and therefore making his reply public also:

From : GEORGE KNAPP, KLAS-TV,
Friday, 10-14-05, 10:49 PST

To: MARCI McDOWELL

Subject: OPEN LETTER TO MARCIA A. MCDOWELL, M.A., REPRESENTATIVE

Ms. McDOWELL:

First of all, there is no need to call me "sir," as you did in your recent letter. After all, we've known each other for many years now. While I appreciate your respectful tone, it seems too formal and stuffy.

Second, I sincerely regret the decision by you and Mrs. Burisch to avoid the interview that you proposed in the first place. Frankly, I was astounded by your magnanimous offer, which I learned about by reading the Internet press release that you distributed long before you ever heard back from me. Your latest letter, which was also released to the world before I received it, was less of a surprise.

While I was looking forward to a healthy exchange of information under the hot lights of a television studio, I never believed you would actually go through with it. Not for a minute. Not for a second. I wasn't sure what excuse you would use for cancelling the encounter that you requested, but I had no doubt that you would come up with something. (It's not that I'm pyschic I got a hot tip about this from a cherubim who talks to me from time to time.)

I was also confident that you would issue a public announcement about your decision to back out. Lo and behold. A suspicious person might think that this little episode was really meant for public consumption all along rather than being an actual offer to sit down for an interview with me.

What does surprise me is the flimsy excuse you are using to justify the
cancellation. In the past, you have always exhibited such a vivid imagination and a real talent for creative writing, so I assumed you would come up with a much better reason. Apparently, my expectations of you were somewhat inflated.

Just so I am clear on this, you cancelled the interview because I wrote a short note to a friend of yours who was pestering me about agreeing to an interview? As noted in my note, I was a bit irritated about being lobbied on your behalf. You placed the initial call to my phone in the evening hours, long after I had left the station. Then you immediately released your public notice on the Internet, which is where I first learned about it. Then you called and left another phone message.

Then two of your functionaries sent e-mails to my workplace to urge me to accept the offer. I'm sorry that I did not cancel all of my appointments so that I could respond immediately to your message, but some of us have actual jobs. By the time I retrieved my messages the following afternoon, I had several unsolicited communications from your supporters and was privy to quite a bit of Internet chatter about this offer.

As I explaind to your associate, I do not appreciate being lobbied so intensely about anything. It's a character flaw, I suppose. Yes, in my response, I did characterize this matter as "minor league." I did NOT mean it to be a derisive shot at you or Mrs. Burisch, and only intended it to be way to dissuade your associate from any additional lobbying on your behalf. I had already decided to accept your offer and didn't need any arm twisting from your cheerleaders.

A word of explanation. Every day, I get 50 or more phone calls from people who have various problems and need my help. I receive between 150 - 200 e-mails each day, also from people who have assorted problems or issues. I simply DON'T have the time to engage in e-mail debates with someone who wants to lobby me about a UFO story. I had every intention of ACCEPTING your offer of an interview, but I was going to respond after I had met my other obligations and deadlines. I didn't need to be prodded by your emissaries and resented the heavy-handed approach.

Is it really so terrible that I used the term "minor league" in my e-mail? After all that has been written about you and Dan over the years, is this phrase even close to the harsher assessments that you have already responded to with characteristic gusto? Really? Is it even in the top 10 or 20? I thought you had thicker skin, unless, of couse, you intended to cancel the interview from the very beginning.

Regarding the "minor league" phrase, allow me to explain further. I have just returned from a four-day road trip to Moab Utah. I'm working on a story about a 12-ton pile of uranium tailings that has threatened the Colorado River, the primary water source for 25 million people. To me, THAT is a major league story. I'm also investiigating a shocking allegation about politcal corruption in the local court system, shady land deals involving public officials, and the failures of Nevada's worker compensation program, along wth a few more projects.

These are stories that directly affect the lives of large numbers of people. They are real, documentable issues of immediate concern. While in Moab, I did not have to spend much time to verify the backgrounds of the people I interviewed. I didn't have to devote years to find out whether they actually worked at the positions they claimed. No bicycle messengers showed up to deliver copies of their college degrees. No secret society ordered them to keep quiet.

It was all pretty simple, which is a far cry from the story you are peddling. I don't mind putting hard work into verifying a story if I have a sense that the story is true and is worth the time and effort.

That's NOT the feeling I get concerning the Crain story. So, yes, in comparison, I would have to say that the Crain scenario is minor league when juxtaposed against real issues involving real people whose statements are reasonably verifiable. I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else. That's just the way I see it.

In the same vein, I respectfully submit that you and Deborah are lesser players in the Crain story, not insignificant by any means, but minor actors in the drama. Dan IS the story, not you. Dan is the person who should be interviewed and who should answer questions about his claims. I realize from your missive that this will not happen, but I never expected that it would. He's not going to submit to questioning by someone who is not a sympathetic supporter, not on camera anyway.

As for the notion that he would make himself available for a Congressional inquiry, remind me not to hold my breath. Would I still welcome a chance to ask questions of you and Deborah? Of course. It would make for a better story and would at least offer the opportunity for you to defend the larger scenario. We both know that isn't going to happen because you would never participate in a situation that you did not control. If I'm wrong, prove it to me. Name the place and the time.

Your letter accuses me of characterizing the pending interview as "a trivial bother." I never said anything of the sort. Please DON'T put words into my mouth. Compared to an interview with Dan himself, or compared to the other stories I am working on, I would still say that an interview with you and Deb is a lesser priority, but I certainly DON'T think of it as trivial. I'm sure it would be illuminating on many levels. If you want to reconsider, LET's GO FOR IT.

You mentioned that you felt I was ready to take a more balanced approach. That's exactly right. I really do prefer to have BOTH SIDES OF ANY ISSUE included in my stories. The only way to inject some balance into the story I am preparing on this case is to have some input from persons who know the material well. That means you, or Deb, or Dan.

But, if you somehow interpreted my politeness as a sign that I have suddenly become neutral on the Crain saga, I'm afraid you are mistaken.
My opinion about this is well known to you. That opinion is not carved in stone though, so if there is VERIFIABLE INFORMATION that might change my mind, I am anxious to hear it.

As for your tantalizing list of evidence that you were prepared to unveil during the interview, I am all ears. If you are going to drop the name of the anonymous medical doctor who supposedly supports Dan's tale, I would caution you against it. I know this person, and I know what his opinion REALLY IS. He shared it with me last week, in fact. I don't really want to drag his name into it, but he has authorized me to elaborate concerning his earlier statements, if it comes to that. I DON'T think you will like what he has to say.

If you want to talk about the cancer cure, there's a simple way to get the info out to the world. Let's have the cure. What's the hangup? Millions of people die of cancer every year. If Dan has the cure, shouldn't he share it with humanity? After all, it's been 19 or 20 years since he made this breakthrough discovery. How many more people must die before the secret formula is made public?!

Talk about a major league story. This would be front page news all over the world. So let's have it. Don't deny the cure to cancer patients simply because you are angry with me. I will hold some space at the top of every newscast for the next week if you are truly prepared to unveil this blockbuster news.

Concerning the eternally elusive PhD, you intimate that you and Deb were
prepared to clear this up once and for all during the interview. You were ready to lay out the real proof. Please continue. Either you have the degree or you don't. If you do, where is it? Why not release it, if not to me, then to the rest of the world? Please answer this one question: WHERE is the degree and WHY won't you make it public? Wouldn't it bolster your case? Weren't you going to release it to me during our aborted interview?

If this is the case, as you imply, let's have it. Put it out there for everyone to see and evaluate, especially since you say you were make the proof available to me anyway.

To anyone who is still reading this I make one point. A few weeks ago, I submitted a detailed analysis of the whole PhD question. I asked Crain supporters to respond if they could. Has there been a single response? Has anyone come up with a single name of someone who can prove they were at SUNY when Dan was there? One professor? One fellow student? Anyone? Has anyone addressed the highly specious circumstances concerning this highly inventive scenario?

The answer is NO.

Prove me wrong Marcia. Show us the long-missing doctorate. Put it on display for all the world to see and rub my nose in it. Wouldn't that be a triumphant moment? Show us the degree and if it withstands scrutiny by the public at large, I will be humiliated, but will dutifully report the facts in my upcoming story.

Make no mistake though. I am proceeding with my plans for a TV report about this matter, whether you choose to participate or not. I appreciate your oft-stated concerns about my teetering career, although I am mystified by some of the snide wisecracks that have been made about all of the trouble I am now in at KLAS.

For those not familiar with this chapter of the drama, it started several weeks ago when I wrote an e-mail letter concerning the circumstances of how Dan met his wife. As you know, Dan was a parole officer and Deborah was a parolee resulting from her guilty plea to drug charges. I characterized her legal troubles as resulting from drug trafficking. I only used the term in a generic sense, but I understand Deb's concern that this is not technically correct, since "trafficking" is a seperate offense.

Allow me to set the record straight, as you have requested.

Deb was NOT charged with trafficking. Records from the Clark County District court show that she and three (3) other people were charged with four (4) counts of importation, transportation, manufacture, and sale of a controlled substance. According to Dodie Crain, the drug was cocaine. She also was charged with three (3) counts of conspiracy to commit conrolled substances offenses.

She plead guilty to two (2) counts and was sentenced to two (2) years behind bars. The sentence was suspended so long as she stayed out of trouble for a two-year probation period, plus she had to undergo drug counseling and pay a small fine. That's how she met Dan. I'm told that this arrangement was supposedly orchestrated by MJ-12 so that Deb could meet Dan and get him under her control. (Wouldn't it have been easier to just meet him in a coffee shop?)

Also, was it necessary to slap the three (3) other co-defendants with a FBI NCIC [National Crime Information Center] criminal rap sheet? I wonder if those three (3) persons who were part of the coke ring realize that it was all an elaborate set up? Hmmm.... Maybe I should ask them.

I have NO interest in causing Deb Burisch any embarrassment. To my knowledge, I have never met her and have never talked to her. As far as I know, she met the conditions of her parole and has stayed clean ever since. I'm aware that she does not have a very high opinion of me, but she certainly isn't alone in that regard.

The only reason her past is even relevent is because of the fanciful tales that have been concocted and widely distributed concerning their marriage, and her alleged employment as a government operative. Now, I see repeated assertions in various forums that Deb has been involved in consultations with my employers about possible legal action. Oh, come on!

This is ridiculous and untrue and you both know it. Deb did place a single call to the TV station. The call was made on a Saturday morning and was picked up by one of our weekend interns who happened to be manning the phone lines. The bewildered intern said Deb threatened to sue me unless I stopped harrassing her. That message was passed along to my news director who asked me on Monday morning what the heck this was about. I explained it, and that was the end of it.

There have been no conversations with my bosses about lawsuits. There have been no fervent negotiations. I have not been admonished whatsoever and certainly have not been instructed to back away from this story. In fact, this very day, I briefed my news managers about the status of my story and it is scheduled to air in November, whether you cooperate with me or not. It's a nice try, but you can do better. If I am wrong, please educate me.

Feel free to report to the world the names of those superiors who have been speaking with you and Deb about my precipitous position at the station. I'm not talking about mere unsolicited e-mails that you may or may not have sent to anyone at KLAS. I'm asking for the names of those persons who have been huddled in these high level discussions with you, Deb, or your attorneys. I look forward to any kind of verification you might offer.

(I also got quite a kick out of the phone call and letter sent by your associate DonDep to my colleague and friend Jon Ralston, asking Ralston to make room on his program for a discussion of the Crain case, and warning him that I would likely try to sabotage any fair and balanced coverage of this vital story. Believe me, I don't need to torpedo this idea with Jon. He's a very smart guy and quickly surmised that this is not worthy of his time. The problem for you is that he prefers to cover actual news events and issues of importance to the community.)

As mentioned previously, I am deeply moved by your continued concern about my career and by your predictions that my credibility is hopelessly tarnished and that my professional demise is just around the corner. Although you may not believe it, I have a pretty good reputation, both in the community and with my journalism colleagues. I just won my 7th and 8th Emmy awards and a national honor as well, and things seem to be clicking along pretty well.

Your oft-stated prediction that I am about to crash and burn is about as likely as you offering conclusive proof that the Crain story is legitimate. My guess is that both of these things will happen, followed by the freezing over of hell, sightings of pigs flying in formation, and a month of Sundays. But again, thanks for thinking of me.

Come on Crain supporters, answer the questions that were raised weeks ago. Ask Marcia and Deb to produce the doctorate. They've got it, so LET's SEE IT. If not, why not? Why is the final proof and vindication always just around the corner? It's as if someone enjoys stretching it out, like a prime time soap opera that strings people along.

The people who have stood by Dan deserve no less than verifiable proof so they can know their faith in this matter was justified. And if Dan really has been through such terrible turmoil and personal danger, he seemingly deserves to be vindicated as well. So where is it? I can't wait to hear this one.

While you are at it, please pass along the name of the bicycle messenger service that dropped off the doctorate in the park. I took a quick look at the phone book and couldn't find a single bicycle messenger service in the Las Vegas area. (Of course, maybe this was an MJ-12, double-secret probation bicycle service that specializes in diploma dropoffs and only delivers to public parks, which would explain why it doesn't need a phone listing.)

Answer the questions. Provide the PROOF. If you want to do so on camera, I'm READY when YOU are.

GEORGE KNAPP
KLAS-TV"

 

Now it’s time that Mr. Knapp heard back with some insight as to why his questions won’t be answered to his satisfaction, and why the public shouldn’t accept the premise of his questions. The record is full of explanation, yet George refuses to consider them time and again.

First, it is not the time nor place for Disclosure to commence on someone’s November ‘sweeps’ needs. Once it was determined that Dan was allowed to speak without the strictures of his National Security Oath, and that he was now allowed by the recently-signed Tau 9 Treaty to “Disclose” to the public the truth of the extraterrestrial coverup, it was rightly determined that to go forward prematurely would have potentially disasterous effects. The outburst of cognitive dissonance that followed Dan’s historic “General Affidavit of April 13th, 2005” showed acutely the dangers involved in Disclosure without providing a complete and comprehensive history as much as possible. It is still a serious plausibility that assassination attempts may be mounted against Dr Burisch, as Disclosure will not sit well with many rogue and rebellious black-ops agents and units (not to mention the black-ops of other govt’ power centers, such as the Illuminati). Therefore, the decision to mount an agressively thorough campaign to fully articulate as much as possible Dan’s involvement in his various projects and what he can personally attest to is underway. Mr. Knapp will not only have to wait, he’ll have to wait in the back row for when the time comes if he insists on trying to force the hand of Disclosure without helping it along by taking an honestly skeptical – NOT OVERTLY SUSPICIOUS – look at the issues already known of.

After cursory opening remarks, George makes several accusations about Marci which are patently false. He then moves on to claim he knew this devious behavior would take place (if you want to avoid scheduling an interview, George, you can do better than to slant your opinion so intently in some emails, while professing a contradictory embrace of ‘open and healthy debate’ in other ones). He then accuses her of utilizing ‘creative writing’ and a ‘vivid imagination’ and other incorrect claims, including where he accuses her of releasing her letter cancelling his interview while simultaneously ‘expressing irritation at her friends lobbying him’. Again, the image not of a journalist attempting to do an honest story, but one casting the players as pushing for him to conduct his interview. Immediately on he admits to characterizing the entire story as “minor league”, then apologizes for it as he explains it was only to give the ‘brush-off’ to her ‘associate’. No sooner is this out of his mouth when he alludes to Marci’s
“cheerleaders”, followed immediately by another disclaimer that he is overwhelmed by so many people that ‘need his help and email him between 150 and 200 times a day’. This is a most amazing fact, when it appears he knows which ones to spend his time on. He then goes on to discuss his use of the term “minor league”, again as if Marci had taken offense at the fact it wasn’t ‘billed properly’.

Following a recitation of other stories he is working on, which seem laudable, we come to this:

“No bicycle messengers showed up to deliver copies of their college degrees. No secret society ordered them to keep quiet.”

 

Of course not, George. You have easy stories that don’t involve doing that much substantantiating of sources and justification. You probably don’t see the black-ops agents on bicycles advertised, either. Please don’t tell us you actually believed that it was a ‘public’ service? And you have no background in how secret societies operate, so you pass judgement without doing some homework?

“I don't mind putting hard work into verifying a story if I have a sense that the story is true and is worth the time and effort.

That's NOT the feeling I get concerning the Crain story.”

 

This statement alone would certainly disqualify Mr. Knapp as an objective reporter. If you know that you have to wait a few months, just like the rest of us, and insist on passing judgement beforehand without keeping an open mind, then yes, reasonable readers may be pre-disposed to feel your treatment of the ‘story’ is biased.

There is so much more in the letter from Mr. Knapp, such as this:

“But, if you somehow interpreted my politeness as a sign that I have suddenly become neutral on the Crain saga, I'm afraid you are mistaken.
My opinion about this is well known to you.”

 

Sadly, yes. Well-known and well-seasoned with bitterness.

“The only way to inject some balance into the story I am preparing on this case is to have some input from persons who know the material well. That means you, or Deb, or Dan.”

 

Mr. Knapp doesn’t even consider this writer’s perspective relevant, despite having information and data that none of the afore-mentioned individuals above have and also relying on information we have provided that he supposedly intends to use in his coverage. Now it appears we will need to use them with someone who is willing to provide a fair and balanced perspective that will hopefully help prepare the way for Disclosure to occur.

 

“A few weeks ago, I submitted a detailed analysis of the whole PhD question. I asked Crain supporters to respond if they could. Has there been a single response? Has anyone come up with a single name of someone who can prove they were at SUNY when Dan was there? One professor? One fellow student? Anyone? Has anyone addressed the highly specious circumstances concerning this highly inventive scenario?”

 

It is pleasing to note that Mr. Knapp has taken such an avid interest in our work that he refers to it so pointedly, yet won’t bother himself with communicating directly with the first public recipient of them. Such an arrogant gesture as that is assuredly a major reason why we have been blessed with such effective Disclosure in the past by such titans of investigative journalism. Don’t bother to communicate with the source; merely exercise a suspicious mind! This is guarenteed to make you friends in high places. The fact is that there ARE a number of individuals we know have admitted to having schooled with Dan, but are afraid to come forward until Disclosure actually crosses a critical juncture. Again, this concept must cause Cognitive Dissonance in the minds of some, since George is often quick to change his tune back to one of accomodation and “setting the record straight”. In fact, he does this very thing, as if to state that he was wrong in the first place. He also goes on to admit that he had had discussions with his colleague Mr. Ralston who also apparently prejudged and dismissed this case without so much as a “Not interested” reply.

This journalist, Mr. George Knapp, and his some-time colleague from KLASTV, Mr. Jon Ralston, receive a failing grade in working towards the all-important public’s right to the truth. As such, they help extend the Coverup and make it harder to effect Disclosure, and will appear shortly as the new poster children in the Media Coverup Hall of Shame. Look for their report cards elsewhere on this site.

– Don Deppeller