From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 12:40:09 +0800 Archived: Thu, 09 May 2013 08:34:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Regarding The Citizen Hearing On Disclosure From: Robert Hastings <ufohastings.nul> To: post.nul Date: Tue, May 7, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Regarding The Citizen Hearing On Disclosure As I told a friend, when he asked me to assess the Citizen Hearing before it happened, "Nothing is black or white. Some good will come from it, however, I suspect that the negatives will outweigh the positives and I am concerned that the ex-USAF missileers who've decided to participate will end up being unfairly associated with the less-than-credible witnesses." I've watched the entire proceedings. It has been up and down across various Youtube accounts as PRG and Mr. Basset defends their copyright by removing unlicensed material. I took the opportunity to make a copy for my own use, but will not upload and redistribute. Here's my perspective on what I saw. I didn't find the initial testimony on the first day to be valuable at all. I recognize that this was intended as an introduction for congressmembers and uninformed viewers, but the problem was that the content was mired by speakers who provided no actionable testimony. Only Daniel Sheehan provided any gravitas to this day, and only because of his esteemed background in defending prior whistleblowers. I'll skip Greer, Dolan, and Howe to make a general statement later. The second day is another matter. On the issue of Rendlesham, the witness testimony and supporting documents were highly credible. Sgts Penniston and Burroughs provided direct and actionable testimony, particularly regarding heath effects from their encounter and their inability to obtain pertinent medical records from their service. Later, Capts Salas, Fenstermacher, and Shindele testimony was pertinent and highly credible. One statement made that I had not heard before was the claim that EMF shields had been installed on missiles as a result of these events. To me, that's entirely new information. If it had been widely known, it wasn't published (or I didn't catch it) in popular accounts of the event by Fawcett/Greenwood, Good, and Dolan. Pope did a good job of limiting his testimony to his background and the events in question and avoiding undue speculation. On the third day, I thought Peter Davenport did an excellent job in listing a series of multiple witness/radar cases that lent credibility to the proceedings. I was less impressed by Robbins, as I thought he spent too much time trying to give himself credibility with biographical material rather than a straight factual presentation. Heseltine's presentation and later jostling ande verbal sparing with congressmembers I thought to be downright damaging to the proceedings. Howe's mutilation cases are interesting, but a total lack of direct documentation tying mutilation to UFOs mared its relevance to the proceedings. Wood's testimony on the MJ-12 document veracity was interesting, though I wish there had been expert opinion to _counter_ his claims as well to give some balance. Howe's presentation of the content in those documents was relevant. Friedman's anti-debunker speech afterward I thought superfluous (though Friedman is a good speaker). Cameron's material on the Rockefeller Initiative and historical files related to that was entirely new to me and very interesting. Wood, Friedman and Howe then went on to discussing the Roswell case. IMO, this was not well supported by Col French, who was not a direct witness to events and admitted as such under questioning. And, not to be cruel, but I thought Schmitt was entirely out of his league in contrast to Friedman, Howe and Randle. The testimony by Marcel was interesting in that he at least had some direct experience; if only peripheral. Randle's testimony, much like Friedman, is only 'expert' in that he was involved in the investigation and not a direct participant. So there was only one direct witness to the events in question and reference to a lot of interview stories that in aggregate lead credence to the story but don't provide slam-dunk. I've read Friedman's books, so there was nothing new learned here for me. Day four on world events was simply fantastic. Though some of this material has been touched upon in popular books, having direct testimony really provided slam-dunk proof of a world-wide phenomena at work. In the Americas, Gevaerd's historical and geographical background information and further promise for additional document releases from regional governments looks promising. Huneeus did the same for Chile, outlining official response and referring to published documents was interesting and relevant. Sadly, there was seemingly no translation of Sanchez's opening statements. Choy's statements were translated and his presentation materials and photographs were very interesting. Col. Santa-Maria's presentation content looked interesting, but with spotty translations. But the story of attempting to lock on and shoot down an object was extremely credible and relevant. Chionetti again provided just background, but like Gevaerd, Huneeus, and Choy, was - IMO - better presented with far more documentary evidence than any of the US/Canadian researchers (including Dolan). Moving to Roberto in Italy, this too I thought a better thought out with more verifiable evidence than anything the American / Canadian researchers presented. Pope's testimony was also factual and limited strictly to what he could directly prove, avoiding undue speculation. Shili from China I thought remarkably reticent to speak given the extreme resources focused on research, as well as seeming government openness to the work. I was particularly disappointed that Wang Sichao's public statements of UFO tracking entering and exiting Earth orbit by Nanjing University's Purple Mountain Observatory was not even mentioned. I got the sense that he was being very careful with his statements. Still the variety of content and the great deal of documentation provided made this day - IMO - the most effective testimony presented throughout the entire conference. There was also much here I had not heard, so perhaps that's my bias for learning about new material at play here. With day five, Callahan from the FAA gave testimony to the Alaskan radar case. His testimony was backed by tapes and documentation taken from the radar itself, which led tremendous credence. Further, statements about the limits of civil air radar was of particular interest, and though widely known and presented in popular UFO books like Kean's book, was probably new information for many. He did make many speculative statements - and some downright factually incorrect statements about Michio Kaku - that I thought was unfortunate. But on the whole, his testimony was very good. Maj. Filer's testimony of intercepting a hovering UFO was similarly very effective. Many of the supporting materials presented, however, were of a general nature and not directly related to his event which diminished somewhat his presentation. He then went on to a speculative argument about the history of UFO events going back to ancient times that I found lacked credibility. Where were the professional archeologists to back his testimony? Not present. And one of the photographs presented, that of the Nancy Talbot French cylinder, seemed downright fake to my untrained eyes. Courant's testimony of a personal experience while flying was credible, but his stated historical interest in UFOs since childhood might warn others off. Allen's testimony of having been one of many witnesses to a UFO event was interesting, but there were no corroborating witnesses present nor supporting documentation. I'd argue that the stars in the morning session were Callahan and Filer. Unfortunately, after this, from my perspective, the whole thing turned into a three-ring-circus. Basset, Howe, and even Dolan offered testimony I just found incredulous. Dolan's deathbed interview of an anonymous person claiming to be a CIA employee who had gone to Area 51/S4 at the behest of President Eisenhower is interesting, but provided no documentary evidence and not even the man's name to verify his status. Death bed leads it _some_ credence, but IMO not much. Torres' story of his father intercepting a UFO is interesting, but is unfortunately heresay. Howe's discussion of alien telepathy and 'mind uploading' was based entirely on an anonymous source, offering IMO no relevance to the discussion whatsoever. Wood's discussion of the LA air raid and implication that the US government shot down a UFO in 1941 - long before Roswell - plus the whole 'Roosevelt knew narrative' was entirely unsubstantiated. And then the discussion of 'electrogravitics' and Searle was downright insulting to general intelligence. To have Greer come in and continue on with discussions of 'free energy from the zero point quantum field', was IMO incredibly damaging to the credibility of those proceedings. To continue on with the 'electrogravitics' stuff, because it bothers me. Damn, I wish Friedman had been present and able to give testimony during this session. Sure, his focus for decades has been on Roswell. But he has all sorts of widely cited papers on real field propulsion, namely magnetohydrodynamics. Here is a guy who could have given expert testimony on the subject and - I suspect - would have debunked Greer's and Woods' statements on so-called 'lifter technology' and the Biefeld / Brown effect as some demonstration of 'anti-gravity'. Instead, offering the widely accepted view that this effect is based on ion wind propulsion (which, is pretty close to MHD - right up his ally). Any congressperson who contacted a PhD physicist to check on these claims would get a real earful. What was Greer doing there even talking on this subject? He's not a physicist; this is not his field. And then for them to go on and on about how free energy researchers have been threatened and killed in the past and how the government is covering this all up to protect the petroleum industry. And then Greer's statement about how 'the visitors travel at the speed of thought.' My God. For me, listening to this was a total face-palm. Valone's statements pointing to Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff's speculative paper, "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force" as if this proved anything about anti-gravity or zero point 'free energy' was downright shocking. That paper is a way forward for developing some experimental approaches to testing those ideas. It is NOT a proof. It may well be the case the Puthoff and other physicists think this could - potentially - be possible. And even a very slim minority, like Brian O'Leary, who are convinced that it is. But where is the experimental proof? Pointing to spooks threatening scientists away from research doesn't help here. I was seriously disappointed. Leir, the podiatrist who claims to have surgically removed alien implants got short shrift in these proceedings. He seemed genuinely honest, even if his claims are shocking. But he wasn't given enough time to back up any statements with documentary evidence. And it appeared as though he had some that short time didn't allow entry to the record. A night session for the man would have been nice. Davenport's night session was also good, though mired with presentation technical difficulties. Dolan, Howe and Greer With regard to Dolan, Greer, and Howe, who were there to provide background testimony, I'd say that - not surprisingly - Dolan was the best informed and offered the best documentation to back up his claims. Though, I would critique his historical approach as being one that mixes high quality and low quality sources. That is, I view Dolan's historical work as a compendium of what UFOlogists thought at a particular time, and what sources they used to base those opinions on, and not as a direct analysis of who and what is credible. He's a step up from Good in that his sourcing is better done. But I don't think he provides expert opinion on anything but a historical account. And all historiography is mired by narrative lapses and hidden assumptions. Howe seems to genuinely believe what she presents. But her over reliance on anonymous sourcing to make several wild claims I found lacked any credibility. She had a night session where she introduced an anonymous source who claimed to have viewed military documents from the Roswell crash. He offered three hand made drawings and a verbal story as proof. She's a professional reporter. She must know that most anyone in the audience would find such material difficult to believe without names and corroborating sources. She's a good speaker though, I'll give her that. Greer. Oh my. This guy just weirds me out. I know he has done a tremendous amount of good in terms of convincing pilots and other military officers to go on the record. I commend him for that. But upon seeing his documentary, Sirius, I was simply shocked by the fact that that he had continued to promote this 6" tall specimen as alien - presumably to sell the documentary - when he must have known the Stanford DNA results proved otherwise long before release. How could he have done that? And then there's that whole CE5 project, which seems to mix UFO New Age religiosity with pseudoscience in a way I find downright disturbing. In the film, Greer walks around with a gun holstered to his hip, ostensibly to protect himself from spooks planning assassination attempts. Even if true, why would he do that on camera? A message to spooks or to an audience titillated by the prospect? Perhaps it's all real. I don't know, I've never met the guy. But - as harsh as this sounds - I can't help but harken back to the Heaven's Gate tragedy and feel this mix of UFO religion with guns portends the potential for very bad things. And sincerely hope I'm wrong in that assessment. Conclusions All told, I'm glad the event took place. There was some new material for me, and some very credible testimony worth putting on the record. The good outweighed the bad in my assessment. But if a UN session is put together, folks ought to know that it won't go anything like that orchestrated event. There will be significant skepticism and it will take place in a forum where the organizers will not control who gains access to the floor. Participants will face professionals in their respective fields able to challenge the UFO narrative with conventional wisdom views. In particular, physicists WILL challenge anyone who proposes 'free energy' and 'electrogravitics' theories. And they will have the weight of scientific consensus backing their perspective. Even Puthoff, who by public account is sympathetic to those views, I think would hedge his statements to only what has been experimentally shown when speaking on the record. But the hard core witness testimony from day two was good. And the world perspective on day four was simply fantastic. In the event of a UN hearing, these are who I would hope would be requested to speak again officially. -M Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp