It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A new "Disclosure Project"?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I know it has been discussed, but has this very topic been discussed(if so, sorry lock the thread)?

Now I mean REALLY put your mind to it and not settle for less than total disclosure.
As well known, the present "Disclosure Project" could be better(show vids for free, not suppoert Billy Meier etc
).

Imagine this new nonprofitable organisation, with good and serious UFO researchers(thinking Friedman) behind it, aswell as credible (govt?) witnesses.
Going on a "US tour" to lecture etc, and acctually show the videos that they talk about and also maybe make people sign petitions(sp?).
Also to do your best to include media coverage(well, some at least) and maybe lots of advertising the campaign.
After a while, if it would gain attention, maybe it would put pressure on the govt and possibly something worth mentioning would come out of it.

A problem would be financing it though....

Thoughts?




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Having Stanton Friedman behind the reigns of a new project would be awesome. I have also wondered about this. I'm sure he has considered it before, maybe you could send him an e-mail and ask him.

I believe that previous attempts at disclosure have been unsuccessful for two reasons. The first as you mentioned, credibility of the witnesses. The second is presentation. It is one thing to give a lecture, as many of these people have done, but the presentation IMHO is lacking. I am referring to the DP Press Conference video and another Science Symposium that was on SciFi back in 2002. Several of the speakers were on both videos. These were prominent scientists explaining reasons for further study of UFOs, but they still looked a bit flaky. If I were doing it, I would hire (or search for a volunteer) a producer that could make the whole lecture/video presentation look more professional.

Starting out a new disclosure project with a different more credible approach would be interesting. I could be wrong in that even with a better presentation, they would not succeed, but more supporters may take them seriously.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Hello my friends,



The first as you mentioned, credibility of the witnesses.


I have to remember you that amongst the witnesses, we have people who were witnesses of ufo events such as Bentwaters 1980, Japan Airlines 1986, Malmstrom AFB 1966, just to name a few. Others may be less known but they are as solid as the others.




Starting out a new disclosure project with a different more credible approach would be interesting. I could be wrong in that even with a better presentation, they would not succeed, but more supporters may take them seriously.


The Disclosure Project cannot do differently than what it did, simply cause truth is truth. You can't alter or make things "lighter" just to make them more acceptable by people.


Concerning new projects, that will always be a good thing. The more the better, for the truth.

[edit on 27/6/2005 by Musclor]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
First of all, I support the DP, although I don't subscribe to all their philosophy, most witnesses are very credible, but it only takes a few to spoil the batch. Also I have looked a little deeper into some of the forfront witnesses in the press conference video and found some problems.


Originally posted by Musclor
I have to remember you that amongst the witnesses, we have people who were witnesses of ufo events such as Bentwaters 1980, Japan Airlines 1986, Malmstrom AFB 1966, just to name a few. Others may be less known but they are as solid as the others.

For example the Japan Airlines 1986 incident, they have John Callahan Director of the FAA giving testimony about a UFO following an airliner. I think this event did happen BUT Callahan wasn't there. He only shows evidence that was delivered to him, and then talks about the CIA telling him to cover it up. They should be using the pilot and radar operator who saw the radar return for witnesses along with the evidence.

Also the Malmstrom AFB 1966, were a UFO caused the 16 Nukes to be disabled, actually was 1967. Captain Robert Salas was in charge of the base when it occurred, but he did not see the UFO. A guard called to him in his bunker and said he saw it. Again I know this event also happened and the evidence is there, but you need the direct witnesses as well as support from the ones mentioned.



The Disclosure Project cannot do differently than what it did, simply cause truth is truth. You can't alter or make things "lighter" just to make them more acceptable by people.

I'm just saying there is room for improvement. I think they should try for another hearing, and produce a new and improved video. Don’t get me wrong, I think the DP has done a lot to further the cause, but a little spit and polish never hurts.

Regards.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The DP was a great, great idea. And for a while, it must have really meant something. But it has been horribly, horribly handled.

Think about it - when was the last time the group made actual news?

Did their 2001 Press Conference even make real news?

They have applied no heat. No pressure. They are a passive group of credible witnesses/believers who are all ready to say "Look into it." but won't. They're all ready to, but they just sit there and have people pay them money to watch their 4 year old failed attempt at drawing attention to the phenomena.

A new DP would need to get the heat on then hold it there. You don't cause change by waiting in the lobby for your appointment, you do it by bursting into the boardroom screaming FIRE THERES A FIRE and then stopping the CEO before he can leave, sitting down with him, and discussing it.

The problem is the witnesses. There's a huge stock of high ranking officials and incredibly credible witnesses in the DP, and it would be difficult to persuade them to leave it to come join "some new project".

Also, about the people not being direct witnesses:

The people in charge likely wanted important, high ranking officials. They pulled the biggest guns they had. Because, we've all heard convincing stories from people before - but how many times have we heard those convincing stories from successful professionals, teachers, officers, the people we feel we can trust? That's right, not often. So they pulled the biggest names they could at the expense of direct witnessing.

It all comes down to the question of which is more impressive:

Case A: Prvt. John Adamson "Sure I drank a lot, but the thing is, I saw it and its recorded on the radar - there has to be something there!"

Case B: John Callahan "At the time I was the Director of the FAA, and let me assure you, I'm certain something was there, and the CIA had me cover it up."

Cause, I'd go with B to tell the public.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
It all comes down to the question of which is more impressive:

Case A: Prvt. John Adamson "Sure I drank a lot, but the thing is, I saw it and its recorded on the radar - there has to be something there!"

Case B: John Callahan "At the time I was the Director of the FAA, and let me assure you, I'm certain something was there, and the CIA had me cover it up."

Cause, I'd go with B to tell the public.

What would be the most impressive is to have both of them there. I agree, the main witnesses were chosen because of their high rank or office. But they also need testimony from the direct witnesses. The testimony in the video should go into more detail of the event, and not just say "I am willing to testify in front of Congress". I just feel the audience may see this as deceiving, and not believe the witness. I'm looking at it from a skeptics view, and what they would say about a particular witness. It doesn't take much to instill a shred of doubt.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
What's also needed is better camera footage gathered by a team of guys that have very good high quality camera equipment and all they do is patrol a known high traffic UFO area, ready to start shooting on a moments notice. Sort of like those storm tracker guys.

If you could nail some good close-up footage over and over again and make several different shots of the same object using different camera filters, you would begin to build up an irrefutable archive of UFO footage.

What I don't understand, is why haven't any of the so-called ufo tracking groups done this? The members could have chipped in and donated money to offset the cost of euipment. All that would be needed would be to have some vigilant volunteers in a hot location. Plus your trackers would need a way to quickly copy any of their footage and make multiple copies for hiding just in case they're being tracked as well on the ground.
A failsafe against possible MIBs.

No one will believe until someone overcomes the blurry, jerky, low light, non-zoom having handy cam footage thats always offered up for proof.

Besides, you can't have a lecture tour without something good, juicy and new.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I think DP started out very strong, and very credible. They had good stories, good witnesses (though with room for improvement, as stated above), and good presentation.

Then it all got a little flakey. Greer started hosting these "CSETI" retreats where he teaches people to commune psychically with UFOs and shine flashlights into the sky to make contact. This is *exactly* the kind of thing that causes the mainstream community to reject those interested in UFOs as weirdos and crackpots. Just another group that is easy to marginalize and dismiss.

If the DP and Greer could have just kept things concrete and focused on what we know and disclosing what we don't, it would be much further along. I think a more serious researcher like Stanton Friedman would do a much better job.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Friedmann supported Billy Meier? would somemeone please provide me a link to proof this statement?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
1) Seriously proposing/discussing this can get you banned around here

2) It is already being undertaken - but please, the more the merrier!

3) No "public" group will ever be able to bring about disclosure as long as it is under the legal jurisdiction of a country which is complicit (even indirectly) in the UFO coverup

Again, although the collective members of the ATS community could definately put together a more sophisticated, and better funded, Discloure group than the current Disclosure Project - the ATS Admins will simply not tolerate any real discussion of group fund raising or organizing membership in such a project.

Makes you wonder where their loyalties lie.


The numerous Ad' around here suggest it's with the alimighty $.

(and isn't it really economic slavery that allows the coverup to continue?)



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Wow! - no responses? - very interesting...



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by feyd rautha
Friedmann supported Billy Meier? would somemeone please provide me a link to proof this statement?


Don't think he does, where did you read that?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Not to be insulting, but I doubt the admins or gov't would be too worried about someone organizing a group for disclosure, because most of the people on here aren't that organized or really that concerned or it would have been done long ago. The fact that ATS remains to this day is proof that no one is really too concerned about what goes on here, which I mean nothing truly juicy ever really makes it on here. And if it did, it would be pulled and the person responsible would go bye-bye. Actually, ATS makes a good flytrap for such things.

I still wonder what came up missing when ATS was shut-down temporarily not too long ago.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
CAPT,

Methinks you have not noticed the topics that just fall off the face of ATS around here.

The mod's methods of threadlocking and instant banning are quite effective and efficient.

I have seen these tactics in action against several of my friends who simply gave up participating around here.

So... you'd be surprised at the underlying censorship that helps to keep diverse members on ATS form being able to organize.

For many of us this is one of the few places on the net where "believers" and even "open minded skeptics" can meet without fear of constant thread/troll spamming.

However ATS it seems will not allow any kind of serious collective action or fundraising discussions in this forum possibly for fear of being investigated, harassed, or even shut down.

And then they'd lose all that lucrative advertising...

Having an extremly popular website is -for sure - a double edged sword - but its clear to me that when it comes down to it, ATS's owner(s) are simply in it for themselves - they have no interest in cultivating any greater truth.




top topics



 
0

log in

join