UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > May > May 9

Re: Regarding The Citizen Hearing On Disclosure

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com