From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:15:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:12:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Mortellaro


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:27:06 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000

 >>Hi Dick, hi All,

 >>You wrote:

 >>>I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >>>to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >>>on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >>>Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >>>meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >>>comments, there has been a deafening silence.

<snip>

 >>Let me know what you think of the petition idea. (Again, sorry
 >>if I'm repeating something that was already suggested.)

 >John and List,

 >First I need to clarify something. On re-reading what I said, I
 >didn't express myself as clearly as I should have. I am not at
 >this time a big advocate of seeking Congressional hearings,
 >unless... (more below). My suggestion of sending a hardcore,
 >scientific book to Members of Congress (or at least writing a
 >carefully worded letter) was intended to be an alternative
 >approach to Greer's carnival for those who did feel strongly
 >about asking for hearings.

 >The nub of the matter is this: What do you ask them to hold
 >hearings about? This is not a simple question. People like Greer
 >who "demand that the Government tell us the truth about UFOs"
 >and imply the sinister witholding of free energy, and cloak the
 >effort in a political agenda, are way off the mark. The most
 >they will raise on Capitol Hill is some snickers about UFO nuts.

 >You need a tight focus on some topic or issue that is within the
 >domain of Congressional responsibility (which after all exists
 >to legislate for the country; hearings typically are
 >investigations into what legislation is needed and how it should
 >be written). They will occasionally look into politically "hot"
 >issues where people are up in arms about something related to
 >Government activity, or inactivity: secrecy, official
 >wrong-doing, legislation or policies gone astray.

 >My suggestion would be a carefully worded request for hearings
 >into significant evidence being withheld from the public (be
 >prepared to produce documentation or affidavits indicating what
 >you are talking about) and its potential national security
 >implications (ICBM tampering cases, military encounters...)

 >Government secrecy and national security are two "hot button"
 >issues. But the hearings request has to be otherwise agenda free
 >and presented without "UFO nut" trappings by a credible person
 >or persons. Therefore a sensible "front man" or small group must
 >be prepared, if invited, to talk face-to-face with Congressional
 >aides and make a credible case.

 >In general, I don't think petitions are a good idea because they
 >are likely to end up in the circular file. Congressmen are
 >petitioned about a thousand issues per day. In this case maybe
 >an exception is in order just to see if you can get large
 >numbers of people to agree on a particular approach. If so, such
 >a petition could be delivered with the face-to-face presentation
 >as evidence that a lot of people are serious about this.

 >You have written to your Congressional delegation; good. Most
 >people don't seem to realize that Congressmen live to serve
 >their constituents, as long as you don't come across as a nut
 >case to them, in which even you will either receive a polite
 >brushoff or a form letter for your efforts. My previous
 >suggestion was to use some of the most sensible and thoughtful
 >UFO writings as a wedge in your approach to Members of Congress.
 >That puts the focus where it should be: on the strongest
 >evidence available presented in the most intelligent and
 >scientific way.

 >Main message for today: People should think long and hard about
 >what sort of hearings they want to ask for and how the request
 >should be worded. I'll be glad to make some specific suggestions
 >along the way. And, you don't "demand" hearings; you politely
 >request them.


Hello Dick, Listers and EBK,

There is something missing here. All of the above, which I've
not snipped, is well and good. However what is missing is the
education (if you will, the "propagandizing") of the general
public. Once the average Joe begins to understand the depth and
strength of the unknowns vs. the knowns, and what is required by
way of research, _real_ research, then there will be a hue and
cry such as the goobermint has not seen in quite some time.

The issue is the education of the citizenry, what is needed,
known and not known, what the government is not telling us and
why we believe so, etc., then we just cannot be ignored.

My opinion.


Jim