UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 2

Re: Censoring Dr. Greer & Witnesses - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:12:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:39:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Censoring Dr. Greer & Witnesses - Velez

>From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:19:45 EST
>Subject: Censoring Dr. Greer & Witnesses

Hello Vince,

You write:

>There has been a long and vehement criticism of the DISCLOSURE
>PROJECT press conference for daring to mention such topics as;
>operational gravity control, zero point energy, space-based SDI,
>and deep conspiracies relating to a massive coverup.

Not a single one of the "disclosure witnesses" has testified
about 'space-based weaponry' or 'zero point energy.'

The fact is; each and every witness has testified about
something _UFO_ related, but not a single word was ever spoken
(_prior_ to the press conference) about either one of the other
two separate and completely _unrelated_ (to UFO info disclosure)

Ya know, Vince... a good 'offense' is not always the best
'defence'.' That, in spite of accepted Monday morning
quarterback wisdom!

Prior to the press conference, Greer _never_ once mentioned that
he was going to 'tack-on' the issues of 'space-based weapons' or
'zero-point energy' to the original UFO agenda. There were
several posts to this List where it was intimated how Greer's
own people were shocked at his inclusion of those (unrelated to
UFOs) issues at the eleventh hour.

Attaching a hot-button political issue like space-based weaponry
onto the original UFO agenda, on his own, without the
testimonial support of the witnesses, or even his own people,
(who were reported to have vehemently protested his inclusion of
it) was something that outraged a lot of people. Not just me.

I have not read (or written myself) any posts which attempts to
"censor" the witnesses or Greer. What are you talking about
here? Could you please refer the rest of us to the posts where
either the witnesses or Dr. Greer is being "censored?" - by
myself or anybody else.

>Dr. Greer is excoriated for this "political baggage" being
>affixed to pure UFO disclosure. There is no such purity

What do you mean by "purity", Vince? No one, Greer included,
ever mentioned 'space-based weaponry' or 'zero point energy'
_prior_ to the press conference. As far as any of us ever knew,
the hearings were supposed to help secure disclosure of
information relating to _UFOs_ (UAPs whatever you prefer) but I
repeat, never, not once, were either of the other two issues
mentioned by Greer, the witnesses, or anybody else who was
associated with his so called "Disclosure Project."

I challenge you to show us any evidence, or even mention of
either of the added-on issues _prior_ to the press conference.
Greer caught _everybody_ with their pants down around their
ankles with those two little 'bombs'.

And now, here you are attempting to portray any public protest
about Greer's actions as; an attempt to censor Greer and the
witnesses. What totally made-up Balderdash!

Levelling a charge of censorship is a load of hooey! If I didn't
already suspect the probable answer, I'd ask you where you
"pulled that one out of!"  ie; censorship of Greer and the

>Mentioning these subjects is supposed to have frightened
>Congress out of open hearings. If true a sad commentary on the
>level of legislative moral courage present - and prospects for
>vigorous inquiry.

That is a patently false and misleading remark. First, it was
John Alexander, former head of NIDS that accused Greer of having
screwed up efforts that were being made toward securing
congressional hearings by taking his dog and pony show before
the national press. According to Alexander, negotiations were
already underway when Greer went ahead and 'did his own thing'
without consulting (or concern apparently) for any one or
anything else.

John Alexander has publicly accused Greer of derailing an
_actual_ effort to secure congressional disclosure hearing.
Something that Greer has not had to answer for. Nay... instead
of being held accountable for his act, or having to respond to
Alexander's damning indictment, he is 'rewarded' (by his
cronies) by being invited to speak at UFO conferences. As if he
represented the interests of anyone other than himself.

>Those objecting to these additional subjects are basically
>asking for censorship of witness testimony.

Nonsense! You have no evidence. Show me where anyone has
attempted to "censor" the witnesses or Greer.

>If government possession of alien derived zero point energy
>devices is an integral part of coverup motives, shall we censor
>witnesses, or intel sources carefully developed, who say these

Geez, that's one hell of an assumption you make, Vince!

"Zero point energy is an integral part of the cover-up?" Says
who? Greer? You? I'm still waiting for somebody to show me one
tiny shred of evidence for such a thing.

And, may I ask....

What "intel sources?" Oh, do you mean those "highly placed and
always _unnamed_ sources" that Greer is always referring to! The
same ones that only he is apparently privy to. Are these the
same _unnamed_ "intel sources" that have given Greer exclusive,
insider information about the plot to stage a phoney alien
invasion so that the military industrial complex can fully take
over the running of this country and the world?

Are these "intel sources" you refer to the same ones that gave
Greer exclusive, insider information about how 98% of all UFO
abductions are being committed by clandestine military factions
of the US government?

Gimme a break.

These "intel sources" you mention seem to suffer from a terminal
case of diarrhea of the mouth every time Greer walks into a
room! Or so he would have us all believe. Greer would have us
all believe that highly placed "intel sources" have spilled
their guts and confess -to him and to him only- everything there
is to know about all of these global 'take-over' conspiracies.

I don't know who's nuttier, Greer or anyone who buys into his
paranoid delusions.

>If a witness speaks of UFOs being targeted by our space based
>SDI assets, censor this risky reality?

Again, show me where _anybody_ has done that. It's really a
rhetorical question because, bottom-line, you can't. No one has
attempted to "censor" anybody. Greer or the witnesses. Not on
_this_ List anyway.

>I have deep doubts concerning Dr. Greer's sources accuracy
>regarding abductions & cattle mutilations. He appears to be even
>the victim of disinformation on these issues.

And many others. Funny, you admit to feeling this way about
Greer, yet you try to cover for him by painting his critics as
people who are trying to "censor" him. (and the witnesses!)

Your passion is there and intact. The only thing missing is
evidence for your empty "censorship" accusation.

>Hearings MUST be open ended, to even begin address this
>massive coverup - -largest in history.

There are strong indicators that such is the case but we have no
_proof_ as yet of any such thing. There 'may be' (for all we
know) good and valid reasons for keeping certain information
from the public. Frankly, I don't know what those reasons could
be, but because I (and everyone else) do not know, we need to
wait until more facts and information is in before we can call
our government's handling of information pertaining to UFOs "the
largest mass cover-up in history." It's still a wee bit early in
the game to leap to that conclusion. Although it may very well
be true.

Consider this: If it turns out that aliens from outer space are
here to eat our babies and rape the triple holes in our vintage
Buicks with their trident members, the government may be showing
good sense and have good reason to keep that knowledge from the
'general' public. Just a metaphor but you get my drift I'm sure.

We don't have all the answers yet. Too early to arrive ay any

>Let the
>sun shine on open press conferences and open ended hearings.

Finally, something we can agree on! Eureka!!!


John Velez, speaking strictly for myself