The Citizen Hearing on UFO Disclosure (complete video series within)

Originally posted by drakus
So, my question is, my dear co-internauts, why are you focusing SO MUCH on the least important part of this?

You mean - I focus too much on the clowns that make money from this? Should I focus on the total lack of any proof then? Or should I - as you seem to suggest - focus on stories (no proof either) from military men? Why trust military men more than non-military men? After all, they are being payed by the very same Government that many of the posters here seem to distrust. Why should I believe one military man, whilst disbelieving the other? Why believe Haut - he saw aliens and a craft in Roswell according to an affidavit he left after his death - and not his chief in command, who clearly said it was nonsense and it was just a Mogul balloon that crashed back then in 1947 in Roswell? Because we all think that bosses are evil, so the soldier tells the truth, but the general is a liar?

I don't get what you think I should do. Enlighten me. What is it that you see, what should I focus on then?

reply to post by drakus


I agree completely! Hopefully this event may encourage other witnesses to come forward with their testimonies. We will have to wait and see if this hearing has any effect!

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Well. We'll have to accept our disagreements.

That's life.

First one I witnessed with another 15-20 people. It was disc shaped with white and green lights. It hovered at about two hundred feet above our heads and hung there for over twenty minutes. A bright flash and it shifted slightly then shot off...no noise at all....just seemed to vanish. I was told a few weeks later that someone had taken a picture of it but I never got to see the photo or who took it.

Interesting. Location?

reply to post by ForteanOrg



Attitude problem ?

Location....Liverpool, UK.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
reply to post by ZeroPropulsion

 

Originally posted by ZeroPropulsion
welp, already gone..why youtube why!!

Money.

edit on 8-5-2013 by ForteanOrg because: duh.. added quote for clarity.

Your argument is not sensible. Are you saying there is something sinister about a copyright owner handling their copyrighted material? Although disappointing, I would want the same right for my own intellectual property--to be able to exhibit it and protect it as I see fit.

Money.

Your argument is not sensible. Are you saying there is something sinister about receiving money for a good or service? When's the last time a doctor treated you out of the goodness of their own heart? Does the money they receive taint their services?--because doctors expect to get paid in bundles, as do public officials (such as those ex-congresspersons,) as do the researchers who have devoted themselves (for better or for worse) to the UFOlogy field.

To expect an event like this to be all charity is not sensible in the least. And if it were free, how would it even change your opinion of the speakers?

Originally posted by Nicorette

Originally posted by torsion
He'll weave a story around it no doubt. "I was being targeted by a government agent's Tesla death ray. They were trying to silence me but thankfully invisible ETs were in the room protecting me with transdimensional refraction absorption. If you look closely you can just see the power beam as I twitch for the 17th time. Eventually the assassin put down the ray gun and started to play an air guitar. From that point on you'll notice I remain still. Please donate all you can as I need to develop a Tesla deflection suit for protection against future assassination attempts. Donate now."

I could be way off base here, but my understanding is that ad hominem attacks generally work better if they are grounded in actual character traits, not spurious fancy.

Now look what you've made me done, defend the Moth-Man, Steven Greer, of all people! Really, I am mildly annoyed with you.

Oops, sorry Nicorette!

Actually, fancy though it is, it is based on Greer's character traits. An early CSETI training video shot during a night time vigil has a few frames showing a moth flying close by the lens. The still frames show a typical spiral effect. When he reviewed the footage Greer wove a story around the still frame claiming it was an energy anchor transmitted by the ETs that he sensed coming. He still uses the same scam today but he calls the insects "Fibonacci sequential information probes".

Further, Greer has claimed to have been attacked by government agents in the past. They used cancer inducing weapons. That's what caused the death of Shari Adamiak.

And more, while under attack by assassins in the desert Greer summoned a flying saucer. It made the assassins drop their guns and return to their vehicles where they picked up guitars and began to play.

The story was endorsed by none other than - Steve Bassett back in 1998.

But the highlight is a tribute given to Shari Adamiak, who recently died. Rather than eulogize Adamiak with a description of who she was or what she accomplished, a severe woman chooses instead to tell a remarkable episode from Adamiak's life.
Adamiak had accompanied UFO researcher Steven Greer on an expedition into Mexico. There, in a remote area, the two were surprised by soldiers carrying AK-47 rifles. Suspiciously, the soldiers' uniforms carried no insignia. Adamiak and Greer figured they were dead, but they prayed ardently to space aliens. In obvious answer to their plaint, the two spotted a flying saucer overhead.
The craft had no sooner passed when the soldiers, remarkably . . . .
At this point, the narrator halts, sensing that even in this atmosphere of abject credulity, her story is reaching ridiculous proportions. To make sure everyone gets the point, she says emphatically, as a challenge: "This is a true story." . . . the soldiers, under the beneficent influence of extraterrestrials, walked to a van, dropped their AK-47s, picked up guitars and began strumming, enabling Adamiak and Greer to make their escape.
"True story," Bassett assures Barwood.

source

reply to post by lambros56


Liverpool, 1968, 20 people saw a white disk, green lights, hovering approx. 200 ft above the ground, stayed there for roughly 20 minutes, then disappeared. No pictures, though somebody may have taken some.

It is a bit puzzling that there were only 20 witnesses for something that stayed that long and hovered about a city. No papers that picked it up? Were you close to the Mersey? If so, could you give an approximation of the location?

Just being curious.

BTW: attitude problem? Maybe, can't rule it out, it's all in the eye of the beholder. But I don't have anything against you, if that's what you think it is. I was simply in a hurry when I wrote that.

reply to post by ForteanOrg



Oh I see......
You don't believe me neither........and I didn't even ask for money.
Is it UFO's you don't believe in or is the problem just with people who have witnessed seeing them ?

I don't think you have anything against me............you just have an attitude problem.

By the way......I didn't say it was a white disc.

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha
Your argument is not sensible. Are you saying there is something sinister about a copyright owner handling their copyrighted material?

Although disappointing, I would want the same right for my own intellectual property--to be able to exhibit it and protect it as I see fit.

I said 'money'. That's all I said.

But I'll give you my view on this, FWIW. I can see roughly two motivators for setting up a show like this: either it is meant as a means to the end of disclosure, or it is meant to line some pockets. Possibly both. If you don't agree, please enlighten me about other motivators you see.

Now, did they succeed in obtaining either goal? Disclosure - did the hearing help to bring it closer? No, it did not. The same folks were telling roughly the same stories, again not providing any proof. The 'hearing' has had a very brief exposure in just a few media. End of story.

Did they succeed in obtaining money? Sure they did. Basset had a million bucks to set up this show, gathered from honest folks that think there is something to disclose (mostly lead by the commercial disclosure movement itself). More bucks were made by selling the live streaming of the show. Then you have merchandising: books, DVD's, courses, field-trips, occurence as speaker etc. Only a fraction of that money went into hiring premises and paying some former congresfolk. A very nice business that earns a lot of people a living.

Mind you: nothing against business and most certainly not against show-business. Nothing against protecting your IP. As long as they present it as amusement made by a (number of) commercial companies. But.. there's the catch: this was presented as a 'peoples hearing'. If they are really trying to get their message out, they would not sell it, they would give it away. They would not mind if 1000 people copied it, as that would help to obtain that other goal (if obtainable at all): bringing disclosure near.

The mere fact they remove the materials from YouTube says it all: they are not interested in getting the message out, they are in making money with it.

To expect an event like this to be all charity is not sensible in the least. And if it were free, how would it even change your opinion of the speakers?

I haven't asked for this event, I feel it is ridiculous and dangerous.

Also, I believe that when you have a people's hearing, the people should have the information. For free.

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

To expect an event like this to be all charity is not sensible in the least. And if it were free, how would it even change your opinion of the speakers?

If Bassett has be paid by a benefactor to fund the event then it is in effect a charitable event. It also carries the title "citizens hearing". It also has a theme of "disclosure".

All those tenets have effectively been violated by removing it from the public domain.

Having said that, I state again I have no problem with people making money. But making money is the raison de'tre of this event.

If it were free there would be little to discuss as all the speakers that I've seen up to now are reiterating information that is overfamiliar. There's nothing new. It's UFOlogy for beginners. You'll learn more browsing the archives of ATS. For free!

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

To expect an event like this to be all charity is not sensible in the least. And if it were free, how would it even change your opinion of the speakers?

If Bassett has be paid by a benefactor to fund the event then it is in effect a charitable event. It also carries the title "citizens hearing". It also has a theme of "disclosure".

All those tenets have effectively been violated by removing it from the public domain.

Having said that, I state again I have no problem with people making money. But making money is the raison de'tre of this event.

If it were free there would be little to discuss as all the speakers that I've seen up to now are reiterating information that is overfamiliar. There's nothing new. It's UFOlogy for beginners. You'll learn more browsing the archives of ATS. For free!

edit on 9-5-2013 by torsion because: (no reason given)

Guys go back to page 5 I re-posted it.. it's now in five hr slots don't know why it was removed by the other up-loader maybe someone complained.

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Oh I see......
You don't believe me neither........and I didn't even ask for money.
Is it UFO's you don't believe in or is the problem just with people who have witnessed seeing them ?

I don't think you have anything against me............you just have an attitude problem.

By the way......I didn't say it was a white disc.

That's why I do recaps, so we can iron out mistakes.

Believe has nothing to do with it. Either you saw something, or you did not. I'm curious by nature, and because you had this sighting with 20 other witnesses, of whom some may have pictures, I'm interested. Photos made before the age of the digital camera and in front of many witnesses are of real importance.

That's yet another reason I don't like Greer et al. One of the effects of their focusing on 'disclosure' is that it it takes away the focus from real investigation. Your case may well be worth (re?)opening - was it ever reported to government and/or UFO investigating organisations? - and it may prove to be of much more importance to the field than the entire 'disclosure' movement.

About attitude problems: you seem to dislike my attitude. That's fine with me, I don't think that's a problem at all.

Although it's a positive step....... it's still the Disclosure Project making money from the truth which should be public and free.... No doubt Ms Howe and Mr Greer need to pay their plastic surgeon.......

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha


Look at all the evidence that has been presented since the Roswell incidence. You have videos, eye witnesses, expert testimony, large numbers of people swearing to see the same thing. Now you have the people on the other side that debunk all of this:

Videos- they are all faked
Eyewitnesses - they're all crazy
Expert testimony- they're all crazy, or in it for the money
Large number of witnesses- they are all mass hallucinating

Now look at a death penalty case, We are all willing to put a human to death on way, way, wayyyyyyy.... Less evidence than this.

Why aren't you debunkers on death row, fighting for these criminals lives? Could it be that all of these arguments wouldn't hold up if it involved saving a humans life???!!!!!

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha

 

Look at all the evidence that has been presented since the Roswell incidence.

Roswell, from what I have read of it, is an interesting case indeed. But to me it is mainly proof of the fragile nature of our recollections - and how they are influenced by time and group processes.

Nobody denies that something fell down near Roswell. The nature of whatever it was that came down required a fast cover-up - which has been admitted by the military many years ago. And the newspapers DID report it was a flying disk. So, initially, all elements were in place to make it totally believable a disk had crashed at Roswell.

I can imagine that many inhabitants of the Rowell community were excited. I can imagine their amusement when they learned it was just a balloon. And I can imagine that some of them - even back then - believed it was a cover-up. But there was no proof of it, of course, and so nothing was heard from Roswell for the next 30 years.

You have videos, eye witnesses, expert testimony, large numbers of people swearing to see the same thing. Now you have the people on the other side that debunk all of this:

The videos are mostly recordings of people that either tell something they heard or think they heard from somebody else. Yes, there have been sworn affidavits, Haut's for example. I tend to believe that he really believed what he wrote down or at least WANTED to believe what he wrote down. But that does not signify that it really happened. Don't forget: he wrote that affidavit almost thirty years after Friedman rediscovered the story, and that was almost sixty (!) years after it had happened. And again, please consider that until 1978 nobody - NOBODY - came forward to testify on Roswell. It was done and over with - until Friedman came to town.

Marcel loved to tell tall stories. So, when Friedman interviewed him, he probably did what he always did: he told a tall story. It was based on the real events and maybe he created this event in his head with such reality that he actually believed it himself. I like to think that, anyway.

And then the ball got rolling: Friedman's story became known in Roswell too, people in Roswell tried to recall what exactly HAD happened - 30 years ago. What they retrieved from memory probably was a mix of true events, but not always ones that happened on that day, folklore (maybe even seeded by Marcel himself) and some imagination. We can safely assume that Roswell folks started talking to each other about it, seeking to fill in the blanks in their recollection. The mix consolidated into a mostly consistent story. And after a while they either forgot that they did not actually remember it, but only recreated it. Add to that that Roswell actually benefits from this story so it now is in their best interest to keep it alive.. and there you have it.

Videos- they are all faked
Eyewitnesses - they're all crazy
Expert testimony- they're all crazy, or in it for the money
Large number of witnesses- they are all mass hallucinating

Well, not my words. I even believe that many of the witnesses really believe they saw what they say they saw. However, there are many inconsistencies between the various stories, that should not be there if people really COULD remember an event that actually happened 60+ years ago.

Please note that I can not prove a negative, so yes, there is a possibility that an alien spacecraft landed in Roswell and it was covered up. But is is far more unlikely than the theory I presented - and which, BTW, closely matches the outcome of the investigations done in the 1990's.

Now look at a death penalty case, We are all willing to put a human to death on way, way, wayyyyyyy.... Less evidence than this.

Not in my country, we abolished death penalties long ago. Most States in the USA too, I believe. But even in those States in America that still make that foul mistake people are not convicted on the basis of some folks telling 60 year old hearsay.

Why aren't you debunkers on death row, fighting for these criminals lives? Could it be that all of these arguments wouldn't hold up if it involved saving a humans life???!!!!!

Well, I like the suggestion to focus on opposing death penalties instead of focusing on urban legends like Roswell. Cheers!

reply to post by ForteanOrg


Thanks, you just used a whole lot of words to tell me precisely what I predicted that you would tell me.

You haven't convinced me of a thing, but it was a nice try.

So the video has actually been removed by the user. Am I correct in assuming that the video was a compilation of the segments that were posted on the Sirius Documentary YouTube account, and probably had to be removed for copyright infringement?

Originally posted by corsair00
So the video has actually been removed by the user.

Well...youtube just took the liberty of removing it for them to be copyright compliant.

Am I correct in assuming that the video was a compilation of the segments that were posted on the Sirius Documentary YouTube account, and probably had to be removed for copyright infringement?

I'm not sure what's in the Sirius doc; I haven't seen it. The playlist I posted was a complete list of everything...every speaker, every lecture, every day, every minute of the hearing.

Oh well...I kind of suspected this would happen, but hoped it wouldn't. Sorry, ATS. Hope you got to watch some of it. I only got a few videos in, but it was good stuff so far. It was definitely worth my time. Hopefully this will set an important precedent for more open communications between us and them.

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha

 

Look at all the evidence that has been presented since the Roswell incidence. You have videos, eye witnesses, expert testimony, large numbers of people swearing to see the same thing. Now you have the people on the other side that debunk all of this:

Videos- they are all faked
Eyewitnesses - they're all crazy
Expert testimony- they're all crazy, or in it for the money
Large number of witnesses- they are all mass hallucinating

Now look at a death penalty case, We are all willing to put a human to death on way, way, wayyyyyyy.... Less evidence than this.

Why aren't you debunkers on death row, fighting for these criminals lives? Could it be that all of these arguments wouldn't hold up if it involved saving a humans life???!!!!!

Can you confirm that the information that has been put out is not meant to intentionally fool the people as in disinformation?

I give you this. There is enough information out there to suspect something is going on, but to claim it proves its Aliens is a bit of a jump.

You will need physical proof and a scientific peer review to confirm the existence of an alien civilization. Eye witness accounts are not typically reliable.

As for the death row case. You performed a violent (murder,rape,child abuse) crime and you have physical proof as DNA. Dimply send the family a bill for the chairs electric bill.

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Thanks, you just used a whole lot of words to tell me precisely what I predicted that you would tell me.

You haven't convinced me of a thing, but it was a nice try.

Well, I hope it makes your day