Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Bildr

Citizen Hearing On Disclosure

230 posts in this topic

From April 29 to May 3, 2013 researchers, activists, and military/agency/political witnesses representing ten countries gave testimony in Washington, DC to six former members of the United States Congress about events and evidence indicating an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race.

http://www.citizenhearing.org/

okayy, that was last year, so wheres the evidence? testimonies do not count as evidence.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

The thing is....if testimonies do not count as evidence...why is anyone called as a witness in a court of law...?

Why do they have a witness stand built into the design of the court room?

The job of Judge and jury...or in the case of internet forums...readers - is to assess any testimony and judge it's worth.

Just like they would have to do with physical and forensic evidence.

.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to get a conviction with a witness statement,witness testimony is notoriously unreliable that's why you need corroboration or ideally physical evidence,something that is sadly missing from most ufo incidents

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to get a conviction with a witness statement,witness testimony is notoriously unreliable that's why you need corroboration or ideally physical evidence,something that is sadly missing from most ufo incidents

no one said it was easy... :)

but it's all we've got as this is an internet forum and not a science laboratory or a court of law.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not another disclosure thread!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not another disclosure thread!

you prefer a blurry clip of fuzzy lights in the sky..?

.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling it a "hearing" is a bit of a misnomer. It was six former legislators who were paid $20,000 each (plus expenses) to sit and listen to several days of a group of enthusiasts speaking to a group of enthusiasts.

The photos of those testifying are quite the contrast to the photos of the former legislators

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ufo-buffs-beam-well-paid-ex-pols-article-1.1330724

The faux chambers looked impressive on Youtube, but were really stage dressing.

http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/05/citizen-hearing-on-ufos-producing-lots-of-mulders-no-scullys-so-far/

-and-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/02/citizen-hearing-on-disclosure-a-faux-hearing-about-alien-encounters.html

It covered all the same stuff we've heard before

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/citizen-hearing-on-disclo_3_n_3208536.html

Frankly, folks, for $20,000 and expenses, I'd sit and listen to them read the telephone directory and ask the occasional question for several days. And, to be a bit unkind, I've seen better costumes at scifi and anime conventions.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The faux chambers looked impressive on Youtube, but were really stage dressing.

http://doubtfulnews....scullys-so-far/

I liked this comment found under the article you linked

"I watched the first hour and fifty minutes of this charade. Clearly dishonest – pretending to be an official hearing with faux oaths and omitting the retired status of the panel who failed to ask a single probing question and who allowed the most outrageous use of hearsay. Zero evidence produced from witnesses of dubious authority and obvious bias. A sham".

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not another disclosure thread!

you prefer a blurry clip of fuzzy lights in the sky..?

.

They might as well be one in the same.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this comment found under the article you linked

"I watched the first hour and fifty minutes of this charade. Clearly dishonest – pretending to be an official hearing with faux oaths and omitting the retired status of the panel who failed to ask a single probing question and who allowed the most outrageous use of hearsay. Zero evidence produced from witnesses of dubious authority and obvious bias. A sham".

And look the owner even advertised a dating site called...'Spookydate'...

http://doubtfulnews....-site-launched/

Tony tells me there are other paranormal-themed dating sites out there but they aren’t good, he says. This is actually a neat idea, why NOT attract people to each other with mutual (if a bit fringe) interests. I wonder if maybe he might get some who are rather extreme about their interest in the paranormal. Since it’s just launched, I guess we have to wait and see.

I liked this comment under the advertising article

Bah! I’m happily attached, but I had a look (with my other half present, I haste to add)… icon_wink.gif My searches showed two users total. One chap and one lady. Now I have never actually joined a dating site, but that does seem a rather restrictive audience. However I hope the two of them hook up! icon_biggrin.gif

I had a look on Google and skeptic dating finds no equivalent site. So spookyparadigm here is still scope for a dating agency!

Yeah a really reliable and impressive site...LOL

7 comments for the Spookydate article and wow...8 for the Citizen's Hearing one...

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: And on that link, in the main body of text, it says: "It’s a dating site for people into everything from Jack the Ripper to zombies"

And just above the comments, is the legend: (in caps)

COMMENTING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SITE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE. READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT POLICY BEFORE SUBMITTING. NONSENSE IS NOT PERMITTED. :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

What kind of nutter would be 'into' Jack the Ripper.... :o

or zombies for that matter...such attractive creatures.. :hmm:

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried to access the Spookydate website and got an error message:/

I guess I'll just have to stick with my mortal computer geek of a husband.... that gives me free technical support for life...mmmm yes, I'll keep him afterall!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

What kind of nutter would be 'into' Jack the Ripper.... :o

or zombies for that matter...such attractive creatures.. :hmm:

.

I think I can answer about the zombies... people that are in no hurry may find zombies attractive.

'Zombie Ted won't be home for hours. It takes him a very long time to get from one place to another. And he may be too tired when he does finally get home to have any 'special couple time', which means I can get some extra sleep.'

:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

What kind of nutter would be 'into' Jack the Ripper.... :o

or zombies for that matter...such attractive creatures.. :hmm:

.

Lol, have you not seen other sections here on UM? We have our fair share of JtR and zombie folks :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.

The thing is....if testimonies do not count as evidence...why is anyone called as a witness in a court of law...?

Why do they have a witness stand built into the design of the court room?

The job of Judge and jury...or in the case of internet forums...readers - is to assess any testimony and judge it's worth.

Just like they would have to do with physical and forensic evidence.

.

No defence lawyer would put you on the stand with that sort of testimony.

Edited by freetoroam
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, have you not seen other sections here on UM? We have our fair share of JtR and zombie folks :)

I don't usually go to those sections... :) but each to their own...

Yes there's definitely a difference between actually admiring J the R...(nutters)

and finding the case of interest....(researchers)

No defence lawyer would put you on the stand with that sort of testimony.

that isn't the point...the point is that witness testimony is treated as acceptable evidence...

and like the readers of an internet forum.....a judge and jury have to make assessments and judgements

when hearing what a witness has to say...

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't usually go to those sections... :) but each to their own...

Yes there's definitely a difference between actually admiring J the R...(nutters)

and finding the case of interest....(researchers)

that isn't the point...the point is that witness testimony is treated as acceptable evidence...

and like the readers of an internet forum.....a judge and jury have to make assessments and judgements

when hearing what a witness has to say...

.

Not in a court, no. If your testimony is going to be an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race, then you will have to go through evaluation first to see if you are sane enough...unless there is absolute proof that you are right, which will be DNA and a whole lot more than just a testimony.

So i say say again...NO lawyer would put you on the stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not in a court, no. If your testimony is going to be an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race, then you will have to go through evaluation first to see if you are sane enough...unless there is absolute proof that you are right, which will be DNA and a whole lot more than just a testimony.

So i say say again...NO lawyer would put you on the stand.

I disagree....

Any Lawyer would be happy to put someone like Edgar Mitchell on the stand....

Chance would be a fine thing....

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree....

Any Lawyer would be happy to put someone like Edgar Mitchell on the stand....

Chance would be a fine thing....

.

Why not just turn the whole thing into a circus and put David Icke on the stand too?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why not just turn the whole thing into a circus and put David Icke on the stand too?

you mean like you just did......

edit to clarify....like you are trying to turn this thread into a circus by bringing in Icke and ignoring Mitchell...

rather obvious freetoroam...

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean like you just did......

edit to clarify....like you are trying to turn this thread into a circus by bringing in Icke and ignoring Mitchell...

rather obvious freetoroam...

.

I did not ignore Mitchell, i just said why not put them both on the stand? You seem to be ignoring the obvious...NO LAWYER WOULD PUT ANYONE ON THE STAND WITH THAT SORT OF "TESTIMONY".no matter who they are, unless it had something to back it up...and my original point was: after one year, where is the EVIDENCE?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not ignore Mitchell, i just said why not put them both on the stand? You seem to be ignoring the obvious...NO LAWYER WOULD PUT ANYONE ON THE STAND WITH THAT SORT OF "TESTIMONY".no matter who they are, unless it had something to back it up...and my original point was: after one year, where is the EVIDENCE?

Why not put them both on the stand..! ...Isn't that obvious?

Lawyers can chose their witnesses....and obviously would chose Edgar Mitchell over David Icke any day (like I would)

And if he was still alive they would put someone like Navy Commander George Hoover on the stand..

http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/renowned-us-navy-commander-reveals.html

But like I said...chance would be a fine thing..

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.

The thing is....if testimonies do not count as evidence...why is anyone called as a witness in a court of law...?

Why do they have a witness stand built into the design of the court room?

The job of Judge and jury...or in the case of internet forums...readers - is to assess any testimony and judge it's worth.

Just like they would have to do with physical and forensic evidence.

.

Hi, Bee. You're quite right to suggest that the sort of conclusive evidence that science requires may not be possible, where an extraterrestrial presence at Earth is concerned. Science is not properly equipped to work where there is a desire and ability in the subject for study to make itself highly elusive, and counter any of our attempts to unambiguously confirm its existence.

The legal standard of proof is a good example of an alternate standard of evidence. Witness testimony is not perfect, of course, but it is frequently the basis for deciding very important legal cases. Certainty beyond a reasonable doubt may not be the equivalent of science' requirement of a certain number of sigmas of improbability that a conclusion is in error. We must work with what is available to us.

The question of an extraterrestrial presence at Earth could well be viewed as a matter involving the social complexities of two groups of sentient beings. As such, it may well be more amenable to something akin to jurisprudence than to the elegant protocols of science.

Edited by bison
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.