'Roadblocks' could make further UFO hearings 'impossible'

[UM-Bot]

Things are not looking particularly promising for more hearings on the subject of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/369633/roadblocks-could-make-further-ufo-hearings-impossible

[Hazzard]

3 hours ago, UM-Bot said:

Things are not looking particularly promising for more hearings on the subject of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/369633/roadblocks-could-make-further-ufo-hearings-impossible

If its just the same wild stories without a shread of hard evidence, then I really couldnt care less.

[Hawken]

From what I gather. The Pentagon is causing the roadblocks. And that's a mystery in itself.

[esoteric_toad]

Almost seems like they are producing a reality show. Nice distraction from their seeming inability to actually do their jobs.

[Cho Jinn]

2 hours ago, Hazzard said:

If its just the same wild stories without a shread of hard evidence, then I really couldnt care less.

Well, I mean, you cared enough to comment, right?

 

Generally, however, I am in about the same boat.  Either the aliens are giving Robert L. Peters 10% or I don't care.

[Trelane]

If there's involvement by the DoD, then it stands to reason it involves classified material. Not really a mystery there.

[OpenMindedSceptic]

What a farce. When governments think it's their money then it's a problem. The money they spend is the taxes collected from the people. so it's not unreasonable to be told what it is being spent on, with no roadblocks. And as for, "classified for security reasons", no, just no. It's too open to abuse that statement. 

[Trelane]

2 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

What a farce. When governments think it's their money then it's a problem. The money they spend is the taxes collected from the people. so it's not unreasonable to be told what it is being spent on, with no roadblocks. And as for, "classified for security reasons", no, just no. It's too open to abuse that statement. 

What do you mean open to abuse? What are you specifically referencing will be abused? Do you think that military's and industry related classified projects should be part of the public domain?

I'm not sure how protecting classified projects could be considered a "farce".

[Ambergris]

Seems that panel made up of important people in the US may not access certain information held by less important people. 

[Trelane]

49 minutes ago, Ambergris said:

Seems that panel made up of important people in the US may not access certain information held by less important people. 

That is very inaccurate (and rather silly) way to describe how a Senate panel inquiry is conducted in regard to discussions of classified information. 

[Ambergris]

19 hours ago, Trelane said:

That is very inaccurate (and rather silly) way to describe how a Senate panel inquiry is conducted in regard to discussions of classified information. 

Don't tell me about silly. I watched the proceedings.

[Trelane]

9 minutes ago, Ambergris said:

Don't tell me about silly. I watched the proceedings.

Agreed on that particular proceeding. It was basically those three gentlemen re-telling their stories under oath and the panel lobbing easy "softball" questions. It did nothing to provide any further detail.

However, your characterization of  someone's "importance" by position when talking about classified items is not accurate. One could argue that based on one's access and knowledge of items, they would likely be more important. 

[Ambergris]

20 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Agreed on that particular proceeding. It was basically those three gentlemen re-telling their stories under oath and the panel lobbing easy "softball" questions. It did nothing to provide any further detail.

However, your characterization of  someone's "importance" by position when talking about classified items is not accurate. One could argue that based on one's access and knowledge of items, they would likely be more important. 

Definitely.