Editors Note: George Knapp is publicly known as an “Investigative Reporter” for KLAS-TV, Channel 8, Las Vegas, NV USA. He signs his correspondense this way which would lead one to assume that he is in fact speaking as an representative of KLAS-TV and possibly of its corporate affilates.

The following is an exploration into the words of George Knapp and a debative response from Don Deppeller (a.k.a. Dondep). So that the reader will know, Dondep did graciously request permission from George Knapp to publish his own words in emails to select individuals, prior to this article, at my request as the editor and webmistress. The ones that are quoted from are therefore only those that have been publicly published by the recipients, and do not include many more ‘private’ emails that continue the vein of bias and vitriol in Mr. Knapp’s approach to the story of Dr. Dan Burisch. For the reader’s benefit, the request to Mr. Knapp and his response is here noted, and may cause minor shock to some who had no idea that Mr. Knapp’s name and words are ‘owned’ by his employer. I suspect if his employers knew what he was saying in writing as a representative of KLAS-TV they might be quite shocked too.

–Toni Jannelli

The following is basically a debate between Don Deppeller and George Knapp - using George's own words - those that we feel are "allowed" as per the disclaimer above. Don's replies are in black; George's in orange.

To: George Knapp
From: Don Deppeller

Subject: Regarding publishing your emails to: Marci McDowell, Bill Hamilton, Rob't Blair or myself

Sent: Oct 30, 2005

George;
 
Regarding the emails that you have sent to the following individuals - Bill Hamilton, Marcia McDowell, and Robert Blair as well as myself - over the past nearly three years; would you stand by them if published?  Or would you prefer them not to be published verbatim?  If I hear nothing, I will presume you have no objection to having the reader see them in their original entirety, or, if you object to having them published verbatim, please indicate and they will only be paraphrased.
 
Also, you are welcome to go on the record for the upcoming article being prepared regarding your impending 'expose' of Dr Burisch.  Please feel free to indicate any biases you have towards the 'story' of Dr Burisch, or lack thereof. 
 
Regards,
 
Don Deppeller

To which George replied, later that same day:

I stand by them, but I most certainly do not give any permission to publish them.  Under my contract with KLAS, everything I write, even my name, is owned by the station. I am allowed to pursue other projects and writing, but only with permission in advance.

I am free to indicate any "biases" I have regarding the alleged Dr. Burisch?  A bit perjorative, wouldn't you say?

 

No, George, your own words will show the public your bias, and this document will show them. In the event your owner lodges a protest, we can proceed accordingly. Per your wishes, the ‘confidential’ emails you have sent to select individuals will not be published; there is enough in your public pronouncements to show the bias that disqualifies you from presenting an objective view to the public. Perhaps a review of the recent emails to and from Michael Brown, the illustrious and late-lamented head of FEMA, will be instructive for your owner’s legal team. You may want to re-review also your statement of Oct 5th, in which you stated:

“Permission is hereby GRANTED to forward and POST this e-mail to all Dan Burisch/Crain-related Web sites, forums, online discussion groups, newsgroups, postings, etc., in the furtherance of soliciting more information on this highly controversial and polarizing figure.”

Let’s now start with some of the comments you made at that time:

“The BURDEN OF PROOF is on THEM.”

No, Mr. Knapp; as an investigative reporter, you are to INVESTIGATE a story. In this case, it is we the citizenry, urging you on to investigate further. The principals are more than happy in some instances to accomodate requests for interviews when it comes to countering character assassination, or in other cases, to feed enough suspicions so as to make any coverage ineffectual. It really is the place of the proponents of Disclosure to uncover what they can, keep an open mind about the implications of what some of us allege to know, and press for an orderly disclosure of what we don’t know.

“WHERE is the supporting evidence or testimony?”

Why have you not addressed the historic Forms 255 & 256 of April 9th, 2005, and the General Affidavit of April 13th, 2005? These are signed legal documents by Dr. Dan Burisch, PhD; you were made aware of them in April, within weeks of them being made public. The matter of having these documents entered into the public record will be a first, and a story in itself. These documents introduce the reality of a treaty with extraterrestrial entities, the Tau 9 Treaty Conference For The Preservation of Humanity, as well as admit for the first time the incredible and unconstitutional nature of the strictures on employees of the Coverup as well as the punitive harassment of private individuals in receipt of classifed, unconstitutional information. The testimony contained within these documents impacts every citizen in the United States, Canada, and for that matter the world.

“Is this going to be another in a long line of tantalizing teases in which the irrefutable proof or the unimpeachable witness is just around the corner? Is there some reason for dragging this thing out for as long as possible?”

To the first part of the question; some would reject the premise of the question. It presupposes that the information you have received was openly proferred by those that are simply putting on a show for your benefit. This is understandable, but incorrect. Many people, bumbling their way through in some cases, made much of this information available at great risk to their lives, memories, or career potential. Under normal circumstances, members of the black-ops community look down at the naïve data-gathering attitudes of those in the ‘media’, which is used to having their material practically written for them.

To the second part of the question; there IS good reason to do things patiently, since what we are dealing with here is Disclosure of the most dangerous kind. All the information that Dan was privy to since he began working on the ‘inside’ has to be recalled, recorded, fleshed-out, and put into context. There are already dozens of tapes of his Debriefing recorded, with many more to go. We would all like to have this done yesterday, but it is evident you aren’t familiar with the ‘Big Event’ and how it would possibly impact the planet. If you were you would address the premise of it, maybe even challenging it, but if true, then you may agree the current cautious approach is appropriate. If you’ve looked into the story with any reasonable effort, you may remember the statement “eventuate a panicking population.” Consider the implications of that statement.

Now let’s look at some of your statements in the past, which were made public by the recipients at that time:

Jan 16, 2003: “Dan and his friends have been peddling this same story for ten years. I can show you, step by step, leak by leak, if you are interested.”

July 8, 2004 “Crain has been trying to peddle this tall tale for about 14 years now.”

“Knappster believes his claimed Ph.D. is phony, since Crain was working for the state Parole and Probation Department at the time he supposedly earned the degree.”

“I'm not going to be covering any group discussions about the implications of his work since it is a total crock. If he has got you 'snowed' based on bits and pieces of UFO mumbo jumbo that he has appropriated here and there, then that's your problem.”

“It is my firm believe that Dan and his associates are playing
mind games, either for ego or because they're meant to be a distraction.”

In response to this email of April 23rd, 2005, sent by the webmistress of this very website to apprise you of the press release issued by us that week:

From: Toni Jannelli
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 3:57 PM
To: George Knapp
Subject: Hi George - time to admit that you are biased?

This is my life George - tell me why you hate Burisch so much - I do not really care a whole lot about any of this but when you are under surveillance for as long as we were (the kind they want you to see ) what is a person to do?

You never replied to my letter I sent into ufo mag - I am sure that you saw it as it was on the front page.  Why is that?

I don't want anything from you - the ufers - Dan Burisch. I would like a country that respects each citizens’ privacy.

Sincerely,
Toni Jannelli

You said:

April 24th, 2005: “I don't hate Burish. I could care less about him. I believe that he is a total and complete fraud who is foisting a fiction on the UFO field. I don't know what letter you are talking about, but I simply have better things to do than spend time debating the delusional rantings of a nutball like DB.”

Lovely, George. Very professional of you. I’m sure the public can expect an honest ‘expose’ from you in the wake of such vitriolic statements such as this. Perhaps we will include your station’s management on the email list that will be going out to select individuals in the Las Vegas media universe and the FCC that oversees ‘fair and balanced coverage’.

Now let’s look at how courteous a reply you received after making such hostile comments:

From: Toni Jannelli
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 9:31 PM
To: George Knapp
Subject: Re: Hi George

Sorry that you feel that way - but you know that there is no way that a person - or even a small group like Dan, Bj, and Bill H. could pull of the surveillance that went on in front of our house for over 8 month with the wireless phone taps etc. There was a significant expense expended. It has been confirmed by those other than D. Burisch that it did have to do with Don Deppeller’s (my spouse) involvement with Dan and BJ (Marcia).

Please do not be so angry. I am sorry if I offended you but you seem totally unwilling to look at these new facts.

I wish you well.

Sincerely,
Toni Jannelli

[NOTE: To this I attached my P.I.F. to the Government of Canada which described our harassment in Washington DC and here in Canada.]

Whereupon you make the following judgemental comments, in the same vein as has become customary with you:

From: "George Knapp"
Date: April 25, 2005 10:23:37 AM MDT
To: "Toni Jannelli"
Subject: RE: Hi George

"Believe what you want. I don't criticize the religion of others.

You didn't offend me and I'm not angry. I just have no interest in
this anymore because of MY OWN belief that it is a complete waste of
time.”

We note how you ascribe all of this to a “religion”. Would you characterize the mailing list of Victor Martinez, Jack Sarfatti, et al, a “religious text” that you ascribe to? It appears that when you are confronted with the determination of some to find out the truth of a matter, you can categorize that determination as a ‘religion’, and so once again push the subject matter to the fringe, where you can subsequently poke fun and jeer at it to your heart’s content. Perhaps this area is better left to the theological correspondent of the KLAS-TV enterprise, if we are to take you at your word. Particularly since you have no interest in this anymore, and therefore no need to produce a story on something that you have already made up your mind about. It is YOUR OWN BELIEF (your emphasis, George) that this is a “complete waste of time”. We concur; it’s best left to those that consider this not a waste of time to investigate.

Sept 5th, 2005: “I'm also reluctant to spend too much time on this because it's clear they REALLY get a kick out of it! They've been peddling this story for 16 years now……”

The reader notes how quickly the years add up!

“…..but in all that time poor, heroic Dan has somehow managed to escape assassination while openly peddling fantastic "secrets" from a supposedly ultra-super-duper secret program!  Come on, does that really seem remotely believable?!”

Yes, George, it may be too real if unusual for your usual pablum, but the evidence – IF THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED – will show that there’s reason for astonishment. Truth IS usually stranger than fiction.

“Deborah was ordered by a judge to meet regularly with her probation
officer following her conviction on drug trafficking charges, and that's how their love blossomed.”

George, this statement is slanderous. Slander gets you a failing grade in good research, as what may seem a minor point to you, in your effort to discredit all individuals connected with Dr. Burisch, can be quite damaging. You need to consider how much weight your words carry as you bandy them about with abandon; people can’t defend themselves or right the record when you do say things like that and your targets can’t respond. This applies also to those individuals – such as myself – who have attempted to get to the bottom of the secrets of Majestic 12, the work of Dr. Burisch, and the implications for humanity. Perhaps you would do better with interviewing Hollywood madames. Exactly who are you referring to here when you castigate all and sundry with your anti-Burisch brush?:

“….it occurs to me that surely the dastardly minds at the CIA/DIA/Illuminati/MJ-12 scouting combine could surely have recruited a more credible and less dysfunctional group of covert operatives that this collection of social misfits. These are the kids who were always the last ones to be picked for volleyball during gym class!
Now, they've created a make believe world where they all get to play James Bond or Pussy Galore, and there's no way that logic or anything else is going to make them return to their other, less interesting lives.  Sorry to ramble, but that's just my take on it. ……As for this material mentioned below, it certainly fits their pattern. They cherry-pick one or two tidbits that are real, and then they weave them into an Easter Bunny tale that is more to their liking.”  

How on earth can anyone expect an objective investigation into the story of Dr. Dan Burisch when you have already created the scenario in which it is an artificial concoction! The ‘proponents’ of Dr. Burisch are really more the true skeptics, who have dug up what you have refused to look into when you short-sightedly prejudged it, probably due to the ongoing resentment that began all those years ago in May of 1990 at the “Horizons” event.

George, who exactly are you referring to here? Are you talking about a particular well-known ‘pottiemouth’, a well-known “UFO nut” that has attempted to glom onto every paranormal-related story in an effort to mold it to his own liking? Or are you trying to lump all of the original GLP group that was privy to a preview into the work of Dr Burisch together into the same sad sack as the afore-mentioned individual? Are you spinning the very real story of myself and my wife as we fled surveillance in Wash. DC to what we thought was relative safety? Perhaps you are resentful, to a degree, that you hadn’t shared in the dramatic events that unfolded on the alleged ‘golden thread’, the public online conversation that focused on Dr Burisch, his work, and how it impacts everything but the kitchen sink? For the record, you too could have been privy to and part of the conversations you are now only beginning to read elsewhere on this website. I even suspect that those that were my ‘sources’ may have even tried to contact you initially to get you to look into the projects Dr. Burisch was involved with, hence your reference to certain ‘Crain supporters’ trying to ‘peddle his story’. Eventually you too will know a real Disclosure, just not on your timetable; in the meantime, please try not to disparage others’ experiences that have been involved in both high drama and low comedy throughout the past several years in the pursuit of this story.

“I've wondered whether it [Burisch] is some sort of OFFICIALLY-SANCTIONED DISINFORMATION EFFORT something that is MEANT TO DISTRACT SERIOUS INVESTIGATORS from more worthwhile pursuits, a tactic that has proven successful in the UFO field in the past.”

In fact, this is often how real Disclosure is adversely affected, when people run from the truth in order to marvel more at psy-ops that clearly show something ‘real’ , especially if ‘former real intelligence operatives’ are involved. It will be shown, in the not-too-distant future, that this case – the Case of Dr. Dan Burisch – is the legitimate beginning of Disclosure to the publics of the planet.

“I've never heard this chestnut about a "Special Access Program" in which participants were "in a special ritual category for 27 years." Please....Why 27 years?  Why not 26 years and 8 months, and they only get to see the sunlight on Groundhog's Day?!”

The humor falls flat to the reader that already knows of the importance of the number 27, the so-called Blue Apples, and in fact the importance of numbers and symbols generally. This is a classic example of employing the ‘ridicule factor’, George. You address your unseen reader as being of the opinion that such an interest in the importance of certain numbers is somehow laughable; how so, sir? Aren’t you at least somewhat familiar with the concepts of sacred geometry, and how the science employed in Dr. Burisch’s projects both utilized and reflected these sacred numbers and principles?

At the very least, you are familiar with the concept of SAP, or Special Access Program, I trust.

“After Crain got married and cut off all contact with Joe [Girouard] and with the Crain family, Joe went to work as the press laison for Nevada's Lt. Governor.  My guess is that his name is now being mentioned by Dan's flock because I already made it public in an article published last year in "UFO Magazine."  (You can look it up, unless, the records have mysteriously disappeared.)”

So now we know who to blame for the smear article on Dr. Burisch in that infamous edition of the oh-so-credible “UFO Magazine”. I’m now certain that you no longer represent yourself as an objective ‘journalist’ these days, considering the subjective tone of arrogance and hostility evidenced within those pages. However I shouldn’t be surprised; it’s the normal tone of what passes for ‘dialog’ in the ‘ufer’ community, the cacophony of one Suspicious Mind trying to outdo another.

“….Joe knows a heck of a lot about Dan.  The message from the Crainologists is almost certainly a form of preventive damage control. They are WORRIED about what Joe might reveal in the future, so they are recreating him as a shadowy military guy without a last name.  Nice touch.”

What, pray tell, is a “Crainologist”? Could you introduce us to one? Overlooking the obvious insult in using a former surname, it surprises me to see that there is an official group that is putting out a message that refers to information this Joe has as being possibly damning to their case. However, is it possible that this Joe indeed COULD be a ‘former real intelligence officer’?

“I don't believe I ever met Deborah at all. I only had a few face-to-face chats with Dan, and there was NO Deborah at any of them.”

So you don’t recall the encounter across a table at a planetarium talk in December of 1990? How about the famous interview on Friday night, May 4th, 1990, preceding the famous encounter on Sunday at Horizons 1990?

Let’s back up to Joe Girouard for a moment. You recall that you and Paula Francis interviewed both Dan Burisch (yes, he was Dan Crain at the time) and Joe (Mr. Girouard, no need to hide his name here) on Friday night, May 4th, 1990, at 5pm for the news broadcast that day. You asked Dan at the time if he worked for the DoD, after you produced an official list with his name on it. He admitted that he did and then declared the interview over. You also remember he was introduced to the viewing audience as DR. Dan Crain, and Paula incorrectly addressed him as working for the Young Astronauts. Dan then corrected her in that he was the Nevada Coordinator for The Planetary Society. Deb Burisch was also present in the studios at the time, and encountered Paula talking about going to a vending machine somewhere else in the KLAS-TV building.

So, you have apparently met Deborah Burisch on at least 2 occasions, but you will probably pass off the discrepancy as being encounters of little note. The lesson for you here is, again, try not to make such self-incriminating remarks that reflect badly. If you don’t know, or don’t recall, or can’t vouch for, then say it. It does no harm to admit not recollecting, so long as you don’t first claim something that isn’t true. If you don’t know that Dr. Burisch is a legitmate agent for official Disclosure, then you should say it, and not make such blanket denunciations of him that you may come to regret. The same holds true for the statement you made here that indicates beyond doubt that Deborah Burisch was convicted of “drug trafficking charges”. If she was present during the course of a drug-related transaction, it does NOT mean she was guilty of drug-trafficking. That statement by you is positively slanderous (despite your claims to the contrary), because it indicates that beyond mere usage – an affliction you yourself may have been guilty of in your past even if only for once or twice – the individual is consciously conducting a commercial trade in illegal substances (not that perhaps the legality or lack of shouldn’t be examined; perhaps it should). Do you understand better perhaps how something you say can have such damning consequences, and it isn’t enough for you to shrug them off so nonchalantly?

Additionally, she didn’t have to meet regularly with her probation officer. She only had to ‘mail it in’, to be technically correct. Of course, that technicality for you is a minor detail, isn’t it? Only technicalities, to get in the way of a story, that isn’t even one you are pursuing, but nonetheless are fighting off hordes of eager supplicants of Dr. Burisch that insist you give them time. You have an opportunity to cover the related stories, such as the story of our plight here in Canada, which is unique in the annals of political asylum requests by Americans if nothing else, but no, you want the main enchilada all to yourself and on your terms. We’ve covered that already, let’s look at more of what you have to say.

“A few years ago, a story surfaced among Crain followers that I encountered the happy couple at a Las Vegas restaurant and that I stared at them so intently that Dan asked the manager to have me removed. If you believe that a Las Vegas restaurant would kick out a TV reporter because of unbridled stariing, then I don't know what to say.”

George, again a categorical denunciation that doesn’t fit the facts. First, we see again this group of “Crain followers”. Followers of the story of Dr. Dan Burisch, yes, and wanting to know the truth of it, but unable to when people like you tar and feather them as being ‘followers’ when in fact they are exhibiting a healthy interest. Most of those following the story (please make sure to give that distinction) are holding any belief or disbelief of anything said in the “search for Dr. Burisch” in abeyance pending public verification, which has already started surfacing.

As to the incident at the Souper Salad in 2003, brought up to you just last year (meaning this was not a ‘few years ago’, but maybe anything more than 12 months is ‘a few years’), you know very well that Dan did no such thing and never claimed it. What DID happen is that your stare so troubled at least Deborah Burisch that she reported you to the manager, since the hostility was so palpable in your visage. Mrs. Burisch asked the manager to take note, which he did, and indicated as such on a business card of the eatery. No-one requested you to leave. Once again, the reader needs to know how blatantly and fraudulently you ‘spin’ the story.

“After seeing so many recent photos of Dan on various Web sites, I would certainly recognize him if I saw him, but at the time, I wasn't exactly fixated on his various fairy tales and don't think I would have known him from the waiter.”

Tsk, tsk, tsk, George. Here you are again accusing Dan Burisch of “fairy tales” while admitting to your interest in Dan on the “various websites” showing “recent photos”. Did that “eager flock” simply make so many demands of you that you found yourself forced, reluctantly, to re-open an investigation into a story that you have continually complained of ‘being peddled for 10/14/16 years now’? If so, why haven’t you condescended to talk to those individuals who HAVE been privy to the projects of Dr. Dan Burisch? Is it because they are average citizens, and not worthy of your attention? Perhaps they could help you understand better the story, if only they weren’t so ‘average’? And how do you know that any of them, let alone most, were the last to be picked for volleyball? How do you even know they play volleyball in schools in Australia, Portugal, Holland, Great Britain, Turkey?

Actually, you are probably correct in not knowing Dan from the waiter. He doesn’t sport the same kind of, ah, ‘headgear’ that you were allegedly well-known for, according to some reports. (Don’t worry, that confidential source is NOT connected with Majestic black-ops, wink-wink.)

Now let’s look at a more substantive claim on your part, one which might have merit if it were not for the jumping to conclusions about anyone being a “liar”, particularly in light of your own misstatements lately.

“I've known for quite some time that Marcie is a liar concerning how she met Dan. In one statement, she met him in England when he was young. In another version, she just happend to stumble in during that panel discussion that he and I participated in. In her book, she breathlessly recounts meeting him for the first time at UNLV where she was taken aback by his laid back appearance. Dodie Crain says the real story is that SHE introduced Marcie to Dan at the Sahara hotel, where Dodie and Marcie both worked.”

Yes, George, Marcia met Dan when her uncle took her to a social function in England where they met and were introduced (he being a little clumsy, backed into a food cart and upended it, causing a scene the reader can probably recreate pretty vividly). Because of DCTP-related issues (you ARE aware of the DCTP, having done some reasonable background research into the case, correct?), it was decided by the powers of the Committee of the Majority (the international group that MJ-12 was subordinate to between 1964 and 2002/3) to get both Marcia and Dan together as they would be playing an important role in the future (this coming year, not to mention the work over the past couple years). (Couple, George; that’s two. “2”. November 2003 to November 2005.) That meeting was fleeting and marred by Dan’s gangliness, and he (as the same Dan she would know later) wasn’t necessarily remembered by Marcia – who was often put into situations that only her family knew the importance of (her father being the Majestic liason between the US and Canada at the time). What Dodie Crain says about introducing Marcia to Dan at the Sahara is also true, but again we don’t know what role the DCTP played in that. Of course, until the verification comes you may just as well pooh-pooh any idea of a DCTP, since you don’t show the willingness to accept even the possibility, let alone plausibility or probability, of such a thing as being real. We do know that Marcia got a job – on her own – at the Sahara, in the surveillance room, and that subsequently Dan got a job there also – as a security guard. Could Dan’s Majestic superiors and guiding hands have subtly encouraged an application on his part to that casino? Undoubtedly, as they had a vested interest in any cover job that he would have to endure while devoting his off-time to the pursuits they needed his input on.

Now let’s take a look at Mr. Knapp’s now-revisionary response to Marci’s cancellation of the promised interview.

“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.)”

A “healthy exchange of information”? Is that what you call it when you exhibit suspicion, now suddenly spun to indicate some form of objectivity? A “B” in spinning, perhaps, but an “F” in truthfulness. By admitting you never believed it, and avowedly so, only entrenches in the reader’s mind your pre-existing bias, and how that may have played out in your finished ‘product’.

Then in your aside about a ‘hot tip’ you show a prejudice to the possibility that someone (Dr. Burisch) may have been privileged to have had an interaction with a being colloquially known as a ‘cherubim’. The fact you have not had such an interaction predisposed you to a lack of acceptance that it is even possible. Once again, you’re employing a ‘ridicule factor’ that preys on predispositions people may have concerning the subject matter. One doesn’t have to ‘believe’ with gullibility everything uttered of a paranormal nature, but a good journalist normally suspends disbelief as well as belief until the facts are in, and they aren’t in yet.

“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.”

Your confidence borders on the presumptive, not a good sign in a journalist. The suspicious person is, of course, you, and you aren’t alone in that. This is why the debriefing and preparations for Disclosure are taking a long time to assemble and bring to bear. Though far be it for me to comment on another’s motivations, it was evident from your acknowledged predisposition you had planned to ‘spin’ your ‘story’.

“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.”

You wrote a short note to a friend that had made an honest inquiry and offer. To characterize one email with such generosity as ‘pestering’ borders on rude and is at best a mischaracterization. Again, here we see ‘spin’ as we’ve never seen it before. On the one hand, you seem to want a story, on the other, you don’t want the story, and people pester you to do it? “Lobbied on your behalf”? If it is courteous and adds to the general understanding, isn’t that part of the story? I understand this technique all too well and is one more reason to pry the monopoly of the airwaves from such contemptuous and arrogant spinsters that control the flow of information to the public. Thank goodness we have an internet, to get as many opinions as the ‘media’ community has orifices.

“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.”

An “A minus” here for the momentary lapse of humility before you next move on to castigate anyone that offered to assist in preparing your ‘story’. If you were truly interested in the real story, you wouldn’t be so contemptuous of the citizenry you are supposed to be serving. Hasn’t anyone reminded you lately that your job is, after all, to serve the citizenry? To help inform them and provide them with information that will help them understand their world better, and not molded to reflect your own suspicious and arrogant nature?

“I didn't need to be prodded by your emissaries and resented the heavy-handed approach.”

Yes, your approach is marred by suspicion and resentment. I can recommend an excellent cheerleader for your position, currently residing in Indianapolis and the subject of an upcoming article here on the classic “UFO nut” archetype. For the record; ‘the heavy-handed approach’ was an offer to take you to dinner and have a pleasant chat, at your discretion, with someone that had actually met and reviewed the claims of Dr. Burisch that you so dismiss derisively. Perhaps you haven’t gotten the memo; Disclosure is going to involve the ‘average citizens’ that you so disdain that you have to castigate an offer by one of them to treat you to lunch as a burden. And people wonder why we still have a Coverup!

“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.”

Whine. It isn’t a question of thin or thick skin, it’s a question of whether you were trying to bait the principals into your own personal “Disclosure”, to boost your ratings in the November ‘sweeps’. A “B” for Selfishness. Put it in the bottom tenth percentile.

“Regarding the "minor league" phrase, allow me to explain further.”

More whining coming.

“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.”

Laudable. “A+” for cutting-edge stories that affect the average citizen. You should have cut it short here.

“These are stories that directly affect the lives of large numbers of people.”

And the dawning of Disclosure is not? Does that go for the story of the existence of the miraculous Ganesh Particle, its potential to help clean up our ecosystems and eliminate cancer as well as other diseases? Or how about the ‘Big Event’ itself, constantly alluded to yet studiously ignored as ‘ufologists’ chase mysterious lights and the more bizarre cases of abduction with few working hypotheses that account for much of the bulk of evidence in the ‘field’?

“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.”

Yes, it’s true you had it very easy with those stories. Perhaps you need to focus on those easily-researched stories and leave this one until we are further along the road of Disclosure and you can regain that open mind you once may have had.

“I didn't have to devote years to find out whether they actually worked at the positions they claimed.”

All the more reason.

“No bicycle messengers showed up to deliver copies of their college degrees”

Of course not! The fact that you refer to a story on this website without discussing the story with the recipient again shows your own supreme arrogance in studiously avoiding researching the story, not to mention your own ‘cognitive dissonance’. For starters, those ‘bicycle messengers’ aren’t the kind that would be listed in the Yellow Pages; even if they were, I seriously doubt if they would come were you to call. You’ve entirely missed the concept of ‘Hiding in Plain Sight’.

”No secret society ordered them to keep quiet.”

Exactly. Your current world-view doesn’t allow for that to happen, so of course we must all reflect your own subjective reference points. “Hear no, see no, and speak of no secret socieities.” This is yet another indication that you need to leave the ‘story’ to someone more capable of exploring concepts that aren’t native to your experience.

“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.”

George, you only seem to put hard work into a story that you are already convinced of the outcome, and one that is actually well-constructed already for you. The constant ‘spinning’ of your own interest as coming reluctantly to the ‘story’ because of the principals ‘peddling’ it is utter nonsense. If you have heard over the years from interested individuals – some who are or were probably connected with Dr Burisch’s projects – it isn’t because Dan and Marci and especially the Majestic 12 WANTED you to do a full-scale investigation. Majestic was always relieved when your own suspicions kept you from exploring the ‘story’ with an open mind, and were secrectly satisfied that your 1990 run-in with Dan had produced the kind of resentment they’ve liked to foster in the past.

Unfortunately for some of them, they are now obligated to help undo much of their own handiwork of the Coverup by their own agreement at the Tau 9 Treaty to aid in Dislcosure by tasking Dr. Burisch with being its ‘point man’. You will mark these words in future.

“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.”

You should have taken what was offered. Now you won’t even have that, but you may be able to scrap together an incomplete mish-mash of hearsay for your ‘story’, but if you plan on a smear of Dan Burisch a la “UFO Magazine”, give it your last, best shot. It isn’t only Dan that is the story, but the many people that have pulled, tugged, risked, helped, aided, covered-up for, and disclosed for, Dan. Dan never came to you to be interviewed, but you seem to expect that he should, like perhaps all good ‘whistle-blowers’ should. Sometiimes to get to the heart of the story you need to go through more than one ‘source’, and if you weren’t so disdainful about the soup and salad, you might have gotten to the meat.

“He's not going to submit to questioning by someone who is not a sympathetic supporter, not on camera anyway.”

Again, sour grapes from 1990 and the plaintive phone call you made to Dan’s answering machine in 1991……a phone-call that went unanswered.

You’re partially right. He’s not going to submit to questioning by someone like you with an axe to grind, someone who has the power to ‘spin’ the story you report, since it’s you after all that controls the edit button. He doesn’t require only ‘sympathetic supporters’ in his audience, and for that matter he didn’t invent his ‘audience’. It’s the efforts of others, this writer included, who have provided the ‘audience’, but again, it’s your conceit that keeps you from the story.

“As for the notion that he would make himself available for a Congressional inquiry, remind me not to hold my breath.”

Of course. We wouldn’t want you to accuse Dan of asphyxiating you either. How would you reckon a Congressional inquiry would commence, anyway? Surely not the result of George Knapp phoning Senator Reid, who by the way has written Dr. Burisch in the past, and with effusive praise and support in his endeavors. Perhaps George is confident he can generate a Congressional inquiry on his own?

“If I'm wrong, prove it to me.”

Once again, a ‘tsk, tsk, tsk’ is in order. The burden of proof is not yet at the door of Marci or Dan, who could care less about George’s need to succeed in the November ‘sweeps’, because they weren’t ‘peddling’ anything. It is true that Marci, myself, and others have objected to you mischaracterizing and assassinating Dan’s character in your past pronouncements. For the umpteenth time, it is acceptable to say “alleged”, until public Disclosure becomes a reality. It is NOT acceptable to insinuate that all the data is in and that the ‘story’ of Dr Dan Burisch is a “total crock”, a “scriptwriter’s fantasy”, or any other such pejorative (get the spelling right next time, George) term as insinuates that matters you aren’t familiar with are somehow illegitimate or hoaxed.

Shall we take a final few glances at the balance of your publicly-posted letter to Marci, followed by the disclaimer you offered regarding your own words? Okay then. Here we have you taking umbrage at Marci’s characterization of you, a case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one:

“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.”

George, let’s be very clear here. Your own words, for which you apologized, did indeed characterize the pending intervew as “a trivial bother”. You didn’t need to say those exact words for the meaning to go unheeded.

“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.”

At the risk of exhibiting the same kind of conceit that you do here, this writer is privy to material that even the afore-mentioned three individuals are not. Far be it from me to tell you this any more directly though, as that would be yet another ‘heavy-handed approach by a lobbyist’ or more ‘cheerleading’ by someone emulating James Bond or other dramatic character. You can’t see the forest through the trees, and apparently your colleague doesn’t either. This is, unfortunately, a temporary loss to the betterment of the viewership. Not to worry though as the situation will be remedied in the not-too-distant future, albeit not through the auspices of your position. Again, this is for the betterment of the viewership, and shouldn’t be taken as a personal slight for your past misdeeds.

“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.”

And you won’t like what an entire flock of doctors will soon have to say either, George. You have the floor for this time, so if you insist on thinking you hold the ‘keys’, you’re sadly mistaken, but be our guest.

“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?!”

I would bet that Marci won’t be talking to you any time really soon about the ‘cancer cure’. When the discussion is ready to commence, there will be reputable news sources that will be provided with the appropriate information.

Incidentally, this timeline of yours is an ever-evolving thing, no? Dan has only been in Majestic for all of 19 years. The crocodile tears from you are only for public histrionics.

“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.”

I have it on good authority that releasing the ‘blockbuster news’ won’t be requiring your services in holding some space at the top of your nightly news broadcasts.

“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. “

I daresay KLAS-TV would be the last portal to get it. You may find it on the pages of this website more quickly than your controllled media, although they too will eventually see it too.

“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.”

Beg pardon? Once again, you refuse to do your homework. I won’t even dignify this falsehood by correcting you publicly again on this issue.

“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. “

For the last time, it isn’t upon Marcia to ‘prove you wrong’. It’s up to you to get the WHOLE story, if you’re going to do it. You’ve never even asked me for a copy of the doctorate. You truly never know how much you could have learned if it wasn’t but for a little humility!

“Make no mistake though. I am proceeding with my plans for a TV report about this matter, whether you choose to participate or not.”

Play your cards well here, Mr. Knapp.

You did attempt to undo some of the damage you had done in your earlier email by offering the following correction on Mrs. Burisch’s “charges”, although you havent’ gone to the same length about her conviction.

“I have NO interest in causing Deb Burisch any embarrassment. To my knowledge, I have never met her and have never talked to her.”

Your memory has indeed been affected. There is help for this kind of problem; I highly recommend it.

“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.”

Another return to claims of “fanciful tales and concoctions” by a cognitively dissonant mind. At least the term “alleged” is being used. Good. I recommend more of that.

“(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.)”

Again, the arrogance of some broadcast journalists and the lack of civility in response to a succinct and courteous request to review this case. I anticipated this reaction, even as my courteous request to Jon was replied to in the usual fashion, which is not to reply at all. This garners an “F” on the part of both of you, in terms of responsiveness to the community. You both have effectively written yourselves out of a story that was once within your grasp, but when the time comes that he sees just how important this story is to the community I daresay crow is too understated a word. This is quite okay, as the sneering and conceit on your parts have a while yet to run their course. Speaking of sneering, conceit, and even sarcasm; here we have you on record with one of your best examples:

“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.”

Well now, I don’t recollect where in the record it shows that Marcia had ever oft-stated the prediction you would ‘crash and burn’. In fact, I don’t recollect her ever saying that. Perhaps you could air the evidence for that in your ‘special’? We also note here you lapsing into referring to Dan by his former surname, an incessant insult you simply couldn’t pass up. The sarcasm is, however, of at least a “C” quality.

“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.”

Just how often are ‘eager Burisch supplicants/Crainologists’ etc stringing you along? You seem much more interested than your nonchalance would otherwise have indicated Again; Dislcosure isn’t for only your benefit, and on your timetable.

“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.”

I appreciate you studying this website so avidly without contacting us about the content, George. I trust you noted the disclaimer about using any of the material within these pages. Please keep that in mind.

The matter of the bicyble messenger service has already been addressed. You’ve received an “F” in the studies of “Hiding in Plain Sight”. The referenced messenger was not availabe from a cursory inspection of the phone book.

The incident did, however, take place, and led to the recent affidavit by Mrs. Burisch indicating the details.

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

GEORGE KNAPP
KLAS-TV"

No-one is going to kiss your ass, George Knapp. The best that would have happened is that certain individuals would have stepped forward to ensure that Dan didn’t get a false rap by a smear piece of character assassination. Which is what the purpose of this entire piece is; you, Mr. Knapp, will not need to concern youself any longer with any half-hearted attempts to ‘cover’ the Story of Dr. Dan Burisch.