UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 15

Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:25:16 -0400
Archived: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:22:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility


>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:18:09 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:38:00 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

>>>From: Robet Gates <RGates8254.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:15:55 EST
>>>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

>><snip>

>>>Some of Greer's witnesses are high caliber, verifiable etc etc.
>>>Some are not and can't be verified. Supposedly at one point
>>>Greer claimed that they were going to check out these witnesses,
>>>then at another point his people emailed me about not having the
>>>time or money to check out the stories and more importantly was
>>>to get the stories out in public etc., etc. In yet another email
>>>his people were claiming they were going to let the
>>>Congressional investigators investigate the backgrounds of the
>>>witnesses.

>>>Can you imagine the foolishness of that? Lets say hearings are
>>>actually scheduled. One party or the other will be against them,
>>>blathering about how they are a waste of time, why we should be
>>>spending time and money on more earthly problems. Picture what
>>>happens when some of these Congressional people get wind of the
>>>fact that witness backgrounds are not checking out? It will be
>>>used as a weapon to discredit any and all storys told.

>>Actually, Congressional Hearings wouldn't be scheduled prior to
>>extensive investigation by support staff to check out the
>>allegations and verify the credibility of the witnesses. Most of
>>them probably wouldn't make the cut, and I'm not sure what kind
>>of story you could tell (or prove) without their involvement.

>Steve,

>I disagree with your assumption that "most of them wouldn't make
>the cut". Certainly there are several who are not credible, but
>I believe that well over half the witnesses whose testimony has
>been documented by DP are credible.

>For some of them, documentation might be a problem due to covert
>acts to interfere with verification, but it would seem
>reasonable that at least some members of Congress would realize
>that concessions should be made for such cases.

>It certainly would make the strongest case to bring forth the
>most credible witnesses with the best credentials.


Why not bring forth the government's own documents such as
Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, The Congressional
Hearings of 1968 with testimony from 12 scientists including Jim
MacDonald's 41 excellent cases, or the 30% of the Condon Report
cases that could not be identified according to the AIAA?

Let us focus on the forest not the trees.

If one wants to make a case for the coverup how about the
blacked out UFO documents from the CIA and NSA and the whited
out docs from the NSA?

Don't forget that the 75% censored 21 page Affidavit for Judge
Gesell was cleaned up to only 20% censored apparently without
revealing sources and methods.

Does anybody really believe that 98% of the 156 NSA UFO Documents
refer to sources and methods?

Why not note General Bolender's comments about "reports of UFOs
which could effect National Security are not part of the Blue
Book System".

These are the ones congress should be interested in, aren't
they?


Stan Friedman


[ Next Message | Previous 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