Prod the Gov't.: What's happened to the photos you were given?

[Roger Knights]

The best way to break down a wall is to attack it at its weakest point, rather than to beat your heads against it and hope to knock it down. Find a chink in the armor, insert a lever, and pry. If you can pry one stone loose from the wall, others that are currently solidly embedded will follow.

The wall of secrecy's weakest point is the government's sequestration of photos (and possibly other evidence) that it was handed, or that it is known to have taken itself and then concealed. (For instance, the film through a telescope of a UFO circling and interfering with a rocket launched from the CA coast. The fellow who was in charge of the tele-photography of that flight has been interviewed and is indignant that the film he took, which he reviewed on-screen with a bunch of spooks, has been sequestered by them. I don't know the name of the case, but I assume you folks here do.)

Asking for information on what's happened to this evidence wouldn't be asking for an open-ended fishing expedition that would involve great expense. And it wouldn't be asking middle-of-the-roaders to accept anything strange. There would be no good excuse to deny the request for a look-see, assuming FOIA requests were fruitless. If the government has nothing to hide, how come it's hiding stuff?

The witnesses who said they handed over material to the government could be called to testify, and the government officials who were present or who would have been in a position to know about the matter could be called to explain themselves. One of them might decide that this was a call for him to disclose what he knew. (He'd be released from any non-disclosure agreements he might have signed if congress asked him to testify.)

Even if they all denied it (unlikely), it would be good to have them on record, so others could come forward and contradict them (eventually), or so that the absurdity of their denials, and their story-contradictions, were plain. In other words, with an on-record denial, proponents and others would have something they could get their teeth into. And the maneuverings that would go into perpetuating this cover-up might "leak out" somehow, eventually.

A call for a <b>limited-goal</b> congressional hearing that makes a <b>modest, hard-to-object-to</b> inquiry would be a "good move," strategically. As a preliminary, I urge someone to put together a "Best Cases" video or book or Disclosure Project using this theme. I think it would be a winning sound-bite argument with the general public: "Why are They concealing evidence? Why can't we look at it, if there's nothing to it?"

I urge posters here to start making posts in this thread listing such cases (and, if possible, the sources that mention them). And I urge anyone who likes this idea to post a link to this thread, or to re-post my suggestion. (No notification needed.)

 

[mike]

Whats the consensus on this question

"does the president know ?"

ie does first day white house orienteering include an update on "the situation". Mr Reagan made that UN speech that alluded to humanitys binding together in the face of an ET enemy. Mr Carter has said he believes.

im interested in not only if they have been "told" but what they have been told.
my problem is this, humans are remarkably easy to program, as sensory sponges we are almost built for it. if i arrest a man and put him in jail and then observe him via the cells monitors, he'll do a number of things, but if he were to suddenly start talking out loud to an imaginary friend called fonzie "aaaaayyyyy" most prison employees would look at the monitor and say "nutjob". so here we have this guy chatting away to his mate the fonz, telling him all about his troubles and then asking the fonz to help him, begging and bargining with fonzie to set him free offering anything in exchange that the fonz might desire.
most people would move away from someone doing that at the bus stop.

but change one word in the above and its all normal, ppl doing that can even become presidents or prime ministers. change "fonzie" for god and the aaaayyyyy becomes amen.

if on top of that set of belief/behaviour you add the UFO reality, what sort of a mindset do we get, and is it really equiped to deal with the reality ?

 

[Ron Collins]

The best way to break down a wall is to attack it at its weakest point, rather than to beat your heads against it and hope to knock it down. Find a chink in the armor, insert a lever, and pry. If you can pry one stone loose from the wall, others that are currently solidly embedded will follow.

The wall of secrecy's weakest point is the government's sequestration of photos (and possibly other evidence) that it was handed, or that it is known to have taken itself and then concealed. (For instance, the film through a telescope of a UFO circling and interfering with a rocket launched from the CA coast. The fellow who was in charge of the tele-photography of that flight has been interviewed and is indignant that the film he took, which he reviewed on-screen with a bunch of spooks, has been sequestered by them. I don't know the name of the case, but I assume you folks here do.)

Asking for information on what's happened to this evidence wouldn't be asking for an open-ended fishing expedition that would involve great expense. And it wouldn't be asking middle-of-the-roaders to accept anything strange. There would be no good excuse to deny the request for a look-see, assuming FOIA requests were fruitless. If the government has nothing to hide, how come it's hiding stuff?

This was an interesting case. The man in question is Robert Jacobs. It is said to have happened near Vandenberg AFB. His commanding officer, Florenz J. Mansmann, was contacted and has since backed up Mr. Jacobs story 100%. Inquiries have been made to many government offices about the case and their subsequent denials have been documented. Here is a link you might find interesting.
http://www.nicap.org/bigsur1.htm

The witnesses who said they handed over material to the government could be called to testify, and the government officials who were present or who would have been in a position to know about the matter could be called to explain themselves. One of them might decide that this was a call for him to disclose what he knew. (He'd be released from any non-disclosure agreements he might have signed if congress asked him to testify.)

This is something I have often wondered about. Can a President, General, or higher ranking officer up the command chain absolve a person from the terms of a signed NDA? If so, should we not push to have the president, if there really is nothing to the phenomenon, shouldn’t the President issue a clearly worded order releasing them from their security oath when it concerns UFO’s?

Even if they all denied it (unlikely), it would be good to have them on record, so others could come forward and contradict them (eventually), or so that the absurdity of their denials, and their story-contradictions, were plain. In other words, with an on-record denial, proponents and others would have something they could get their teeth into. And the maneuverings that would go into perpetuating this cover-up might "leak out" somehow, eventually.

Some, I included, would tell you that it is and has been leaking form decades. When the government and military can make a single pronunciation with no backup and the media swallow it hook line and sinker those leaks can be largely ignored.

A call for a <b>limited-goal</b> congressional hearing that makes a <b>modest, hard-to-object-to</b> inquiry would be a "good move," strategically. As a preliminary, I urge someone to put together a "Best Cases" video or book or Disclosure Project using this theme. I think it would be a winning sound-bite argument with the general public: "Why are They concealing evidence? Why can't we look at it, if there's nothing to it?"

The much anticipated Paul Kimble film has been promised to be just what you are looking for. I can not wait to see it. Now, if we can just think of a way to get it too the masses. But remember the trump card. They can pronounce it a “Matter of National Security” and not have to disclose anything.

 

[Ron Collins]

Whats the consensus on this question

"does the president know ?"

ie does first day white house orienteering include an update on "the situation". Mr Reagan made that UN speech that alluded to humanitys binding together in the face of an ET enemy. Mr Carter has said he believes.

I don't think so. I think he is only told when there is a demonstrable "Need to Know". Now, who decides the "Need to Know", I have no idea.

 

[Roger Knights]

I urge someone to put together a "Best Cases" video or book or Disclosure Project <b>using this theme.</b>

The much anticipated Paul Kimble film has been promised to be just what you are looking for.

Not really, because his DVD is about best cases--period, not best cases of photo-sequestration, which was the "theme" I was alluding to.

Thanks for your other comments. I'm sure this is the other side's weakest point, so it's where our attack should focus. I urge opinion-leaders who "see this" to rally the troops.

Another case of sequestered records was the radar records of a long-lasting UFO encounter by a pilot supported by radar. The FAA was sent the radar tapes and is sitting on them.

Another case was described by a lawyer named Danny C____ (I forget his last name), who was on C2C a month or so ago. He said he was shown a photo of Air Force personnel around a crashed UFO at the behest of the Carter administration. (I urge knowledgeable folks to suggest items to this list.)

 

[Ron Collins]

Another case was described by a lawyer named Danny C____ (I forget his last name), who was on C2C a month or so ago. He said he was shown a photo of Air Force personnel around a crashed UFO at the behest of the Carter administration. (I urge knowledgeable folks to suggest items to this list.)

Hmm, never heard of this one. I do not typically listen to C2C because the show doesnt exactly cater to the fact seeker. Of course that is just my opinion. I had a quick look on the C2C site but could not find the show you are refering to.