Suggested Questions for the 'Citizens UFO Disclose Hearings'

The congressmen going into this event will, presumably, be on their own -- no staff support for pre-hearing research or question strategies.

How about we help them prepare?

What questions would you suggest be asked of the people on the witness list, questions that they may have dodged or waffled on before?

If we're going to have a 'simulated congressional hearing', than dang nabbit, let's have a high-quality simulated congressional hearing staff work product.

Some of those folks are just ASKING for probing questions. Let's arm the questioners with doozies.

Suggestions?

reply to post by JimOberg

What questions would you suggest be asked of the people on the witness list, questions that they may have dodged or waffled on before?

Over a period of time... depending on the start date/incident of your choosing (I like Cape Girardeau), the UFO cover-up has been going on seven decades now. That's 70 years!

Q: Where would we be today (in ref to UFOs) if this subject had not been continuously denied by government, rigorously ignored by science and used to humiliate witnesses by the press/media? Would we have some gold standard that we could rely on when investigating sightings? Or would we all by now be driving the latest Sportsman model across the universe on weekends?

The above is not meant to be a joke... but a point from which to identify how damaging the government, mainstream science and the media has been to all of us.

My dime.

reply to post by JimOberg


To Daniel Sheehan .
You claim to have copied Alien symbols from highly classified blue book photographs onto a yellow pad when given access to them at the U.S library of Congress , why have you never released this and would you be prepared to now ?
If not why not ?

To Stephen Bassett
What do you expect this Circus will achieve ?

reply to post by JimOberg


There are quite a number of statements made HERE over the years by U.S. Members of Congress about the need for thorough congressional UFO investigations and 'cross-examination of witnesses under oath' for a record of reference so I don't think a 'simulated' one is too bad an idea -just depends on who's organizing and attending it.

Congressman Louis C. Wyman states at the link above that Congress would be well advised to investigate the UFO subject (unless there were compelling security reasons to the contrary) and I take it by your comments about the need for a 'high-quality' simulated hearing you agree and support the notion of having a real one - would you also agree with Congressman J. Edward Roush's comments about the American people having the right to expect one?

In answer to your question I was at least relieved to see Colonel Ariel Sánchez from Uruguayan Government's Cridovni office was on the list and I'd ask him why he thinks the objective and open way his country investigates UFO incidents (and collaborates with the official UFO investigative offices of other countries) is completely and willfully ignored here in the West.

I would have thought given the interest in the Citizens UFO Disclose Hearings ATS members would be brimming with questions they would like asked to the assembled experts and witnesses

Perhaps not

Here's another one for Colonel Oscar Santa-Maria - what would he say to people who use the fact that he flew his aircraft 16,000 ft above its maximum service ceiling as an excuse to dismiss his entire UFO encounter?

"At this point, I came within about 300 feet of the UFO. It was about 30 feet in diameter. It was an enameled, cream-colored dome, with a wide, circular, metallic base. It had no engines, no exhausts, no windows, no wings or antennae. It lacked all the typical aircraft components, with no visible propulsion system".

link

I'd also like to ask him what he thinks about the USAF UFO Fact Sheet which claims that no government agency has taken an interest in the UFO subject since 1969 yet there's a U.S. Department of Defense document about his case from 1980.

Question to Jim Penniston .
The Rendlesham Forest incident happened in 1980 why did you not mention the telepathic download of information until 2010 ?
You claim to have written the binary in your notebook the day after the incident , surely this was important information and needed to be followed up on ?

Secondary question to Daniel Sheehan .
Do the Symbols recorded by Jim Penniston from the craft he saw have a similarity to the symbols you copied , Do any of them match ?

IMHO simple Yes/No answer questions will enable less wiggle room.
e.g "Has a government representative of the people you represent had, at any time, an interaction with a non human intelligance?"

reply to post by gortex




Also, Jim Penniston, how significant an influence on you, was ufologist Linda Moulton Howe?

Originally posted by gortex

I would have thought given the interest in the Citizens UFO Disclose Hearings ATS members would be brimming with questions they would like asked to the assembled experts and witnesses

Perhaps not

edit on 17-4-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)

Maybe IF they assembled a panel of exerts and real witnesses some serious qestions could be asked. But, until y'all actually get serious about disclosure, you will remain in the dark.


So ... I would ask only one question; "Where's the beef?"

Originally posted by gortex
I would have thought given the interest in the Citizens UFO Disclose Hearings ATS members would be brimming with questions they would like asked to the assembled experts and witnesses

Perhaps not

Even if we have plenty of questions (and, trust me, I do...), why spend time researching and formulating questions and/or a proper briefing? Any questions would need to be supported with some background so that the questioner can ask follow-up questions if the initial answer is incomplete and/or inconsistent with other facts or prior statements by the relevant witness. I'm reluctant to spend time on this given:
(1) None of the members of mock-committee have requested a briefing from me;
(2) The organiser of the event (Steve Bassett) has not requested a briefing from me or offered to pass any questions on to the members of the mock-committee;
(3) There are various issues casting doubt on the value of the entire exercise, not least being whether the witnesses will be giving their evidence on oath.

In relation to the last of these points, I posted a query about this on the Facebook page of Steve Bassett (as the person behind the "hearing") a week ago today. I posted:

"Will the testimony given to the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure be given on oath? Or are witnesses prepared to sign an affidavit after giving their evidence that the testimony they gave was true? Several of the photos at the top of the main webpage for the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure show the oath being administered to those giving testimony to congressional committees, so hopefully this key element of congressional hearings is being replicated for the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure."

www.facebook.com...

I've had no reply at all so far from Steve Bassett.

Nick Pope (one of the participants in the forthcoming "hearing") was kind enough to respond, indicating that "I’d have no objection to taking some sort of (secular) oath, or signing an affidavit. But it’s Steve’s event, so it’s up to him how he wants to structure things".

I posted about this issue on a few UFO discussion forums (including ATS and elsewhere). Only one other person (Lillian Waters (associated with MUFON)) posted on the relevant thread on Steve Bassett's Facebook page (at the link above) stating :

"I think it is a good idea to have the witnesses take an oath. The press has been labeling the Citizen Hearing as 'fake' and 'mock'. Let's make it 'real'. Administer the oath to the witnesses just like it would be done in a regular congressional hearing. It would show that we take this seriously."

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Hi, Isaac, you have me intrigued. An oath is a little worthless if you have no measure to establish if the person has kept it or not. I'm fairly sure there is not evidence to 'prove' they told the truth or lied, and unless something significant happens that will remain the case for a very long time.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Hi IsaacKoi
My point was for ATS this should be meat and drink , Most of us know of these people and the statements they have made over the years so I would expect that given the chance we would have some serious probing questions to ask them , who knows who may see this thread , a Google search of "Citizens UFO Disclose Hearings" shows this thread as the 4th result .
Maybe one or more members of the panel may see the thread and get an Idea of questions to ask .

(3) There are various issues casting doubt on the value of the entire exercise

I agree , it's a show or as I put it earlier a Circus who's probable only aim is to produce a documentary and make money for Mr Bassett and the mystery backer .

reply to post by engineer418

But, until y'all actually get serious about disclosure, you will remain in the dark.

I don't think Government Disclosure will happen , I believe it's a pipe dream used by some of the people involved with this hearing to sell their wares and put bums on seats at their conventions .

Originally posted by something wicked
Hi, Isaac, you have me intrigued. An oath is a little worthless if you have no measure to establish if the person has kept it or not.

I think there is such material in relation to some of the witnesses...

Besides, witnesses are less likely to lie when subject to penalties for perjury because THEY don't know what other material is available (or might become available) to prove that they are lying.

Originally posted by gortex
Hi IsaacKoi
My point was for ATS this should be meat and drink , Most of us know of these people and the statements they have made over the years so I would expect that given the chance we would have some serious probing questions to ask them , who knows who may see this thread , a Google search of "Citizens UFO Disclose Hearings" shows this thread as the 4th result .
Maybe one or more members of the panel may see the thread and get an Idea of questions to ask .

I think that submitting a proper briefing or questions (with relevant background to enable follow-up questions) requires more than recalling a bit about relevant people and what they have previously said. Even though I'm fairly familiar with most of the witnesses and statements they have made over the years, I would estimate that preparing a proper briefing would still take me, oh, say one day per witness... Personally, I'm not prepared to do that sort of amount of work (particularly when I'm not getting paid for it ) even in relation to one witness without some assurance that the relevant work would be used by members of the panel.

reply to post by JimOberg


It could turn out that they have been completely above board and are not hiding anything because there is nothing to hide. It could be that all the sightings are explainable and we are completely alone way out here on the edge of the galaxy with no one around us for light years. It could be that there is nothing to tell or that they just dont know any more than we do because the "aliens " are not forthcoming with information.

Originally posted by nomadros
IMHO simple Yes/No answer questions will enable less wiggle room.
e.g "Has a government representative of the people you represent had, at any time, an interaction with a non human intelligance?"

This question could be answered in the affirmative if the person it is being asked of has ever had any interaction with a dog. Oh and intelligence is spelled with an e not an a.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

"Will the testimony given to the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure be given on oath? Or are witnesses prepared to sign an affidavit after giving their evidence that the testimony they gave was true?

That's a fair question Isaac and I suppose if the Citizen's UFO Hearing is attempting to be a simulation of a real Congressional Hearing then it's only fair the participants should be required to give testimony under oath or sign some kind of affidavit - I know if the tables were turned and government officials were actually up there being cross examined about the UFO subject then I'd certainly want them to do it.

I really would like to hear more from aerospace engineer Dr. Robert M. Wood about his statements below regarding the last years of Dr James E. Mcdonald and how the scientist may have found out what was actually behind the UFO phenomena - I suppose if Dr Wood was under oath (or penalty of perjury) then his claims may be more detailed or more open to clarification.

Mystery surrounds some aspects of McDonald's research. "About a month before he was due to testify in March, top-level government officials reportedly got in touch with McDonald." (p.491.)

In February 1971, McDonald was in conversation with Dr Robert M Wood (a physicist who worked for McDonnell-Douglas.) Although Druffel reports that Wood doesn't recall the exact words used by McDonald, he recalls McDonald saying something along the lines "I think I've got the answer;" "I found out what's behind it;" "I just can't tell you right now;" "You won't believe it! I've got to pin it down a little bit more, and then I'll come out." (p.492.)

In 1973, Wood said "I think he found the trail to the classified work...and some documentation that made it pretty clear that there was a cover up going on, that this was the most classified program in the country." (p.492.)

Unfortunately, the UFO research community was not to find out just what McDonald had meant, as he died, by his own hand, on 13 Jun 1971.

link

Cheers.

Yeah, why is it every time there is a disclosure conference of some sort the mighty $$$$$ is more important than the actual disclosure of any real evidence...

I'd like to ask Jim Oberg what he does for a living and who cuts his paychecks.