Announcement

**Kevin** · 10-21-2008, 05:19 PM

Interesting mainstream media (Reuters) report today.

U.S. pilot was ordered to shoot down UFO - Yahoo! News

**Aaron** · 10-21-2008, 06:26 PM

ufo video

Interesting "ufo" video
'Flying saucer' filmed in Turkey | The Sun |News|UFOs
Good detail and closeup and you can even see "someone" visible piloting it.

**Sharyn** · 10-22-2008, 02:40 AM

More on disclosure

UFO Nightline on official disclosure ABC 20.10.08

Love, Light & Blessings
Sharyn

**Sharyn** · 10-22-2008, 10:09 AM

I saw that video taken in Istanbul just a little while ago Aaron. It is also included here on the UFO Congress site.

This site has some interesting articles as well as information for booking into the next 2009 World UFO Congress for anyone interested.

Love, Light & Blessings
Sharyn

**Sharyn** · 10-23-2008, 05:01 AM

Did you know up until 1991 there was an ET Exposure Law?

A preface to the now removed "ET" Exposure Law

Just to end the thread on the Extraterrestrial Exposure regulation that was adopted in 1969 and removed in 1991, I will give the long winded details.
Code of Federal Regulations, edition of Jan. 1, 1997, Volume 14, Part 1200 to end, (Cat#AE2.106/3:14/P. 1200-end/997) Part 1211 on page 75 says: "Reserved". Turn to back of Volume, and from page 481 is a section titled, "List of CFR Sections affected" which lists by year, all changes to theCFR made since 1986.
On page 484, under 1991, Part 1211 is listed as "Removed", referencing CFR56 P 19259 as the change announcement. On the reference page it states: "NASA is removing 14 CFR Part 1211 since it has served its purpose and is no longer in keeping with current policy."
Okay, it was removed in 1991 and is no longer in effect, period. Obviously, the CFR on the internet is not being kept up to date.
From: Doc in Phoenix

The following was provided by R. Solomon for posting: EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE LAW

Already Passed by Congress

On October 5, 1982, Dr. Brain T. Clifford of the Pentagon announced at a press conference ("The Star", New York, Oct. 5, 1982) that contact between U.S. citizens and extra-terrestrials or their vehicles is strictly illegal.
According to a law already on the books:

(Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, adopted on July 16, 1969, before the Apollo moon shots), anyone guilty of such contact automatically becomes a wanted criminal to be jailed for one year and fined $5,000. The NASA administrator is empowered to determine with or without a hearing that a person or object has been "extraterrestrially exposed" and impose an indeterminate quarantine under armed guard, which could not be broken even by court order.

There is no limit placed on the number of individuals who could thus be arbitrarily quarantined.

The definition of "extraterrestrial exposure" is left entirely up to NASA administrator, who is thus endowed with total dictatorial power to be exercised at his slightest caprice, which is completely contrary to the Constitution.

According to Dr. Clifford, whose commanding officers have been assuring the public for the last 39 years that UFO's are nothing more than hoaxes and delusions to be dismissed with a condescending smile: "This is really no joke, it's a very serious matter." This legislation was buried in the 1,211th subsection of the 14th section of a batch of regulations very few members of government probably bothered to read in its entirety, the proverbial needle in the haystack, and was slipped onto the books without public debate.

Thus from one day to the next we learn that, without having informed the public, in its infinite wisdom, the government of the United States has created a whole new criminal class: UFO contactees.

The lame excuse offered by NASA as a sugar coating for this bitter pill is that extra-terrestrials might have a virus that could wipe out the human race. This is certainly one of the many possibilities inherent is such contact, but just as certainly not the only one , and in itself not a valid reason to make all contact illegal or to declare contactees criminals to be jailed and fined immediately.

It appears the primary effect of such a law would not be to prevent contact, it would be to silence witnesses. If enforced, the law would prevent publication of contactee reports except under cover of anonymity, and unleash a modern inquisition in the Land of the Free. However, it is unenforceable, so obviously absurd and unfair that the public will refuse to accept it. The citizens of the United States will greet it with a resounding Bronx cheer and laugh it out of court, forcing it to be repealed.
It should be replaced by clearly worded legislation, not open to interpretation in a multitude of different ways, humanely relevant to the contingency of E.T. contact, debated and passed by Congress openly instead of slipped through "under the table" without the public being informed.

According to NASA spokesman Fletcher Reel, the law as it stands is not immediately applicable, but in case of need could quickly be made applicable. What this means is that it is ambiguously worded, so that it can be interpreted either one way or the other, as the government desires.
It is certainly not a coincidence that Dr. Clifford held his press conference during the period when the popularity of the film E.T. was at its peak. As E.T. portrayed a type of extraterrestrial that was benevolent and lovable, the inference is that the press conference was intended to discourage attempts to communicate or fraternize with UFO occupants. However, instead of having the intended effect, it backfired, causing public furor. There may be some relationship between this fiasco and the next semi-officially endorsed attempt to deal with the subject of extra-terrestrials, the TV film V, which was featured with repeat performances and maximum publicity by major networks worldwide. The aliens portrayed in V are the most horrifying and repulsive nightmares imaginable, who are defeated thanks largely to a CIA hit man specializing in covert operations, the tough guy with the heart of gold who with the aid of the handsome hero saves the human race. This is obvious and transparent propaganda, designed to do what the government's widespread use of dis-information, and Dr. Clifford's press conference about the absurd lemon of a law already on the books failed to do: squelch attempts to communicate or fraternize with UFO occupants.

One way to avoid widespread panic at the announcement of the news that we are under surveillance by nonhuman intelligent beings with a technology far more sophisticated than our own is to point out that this situation is nothing new, but has literally been going on for millennia.

If the "flying dragons" mentioned in the I Ching intended to attack and destroy us, they could easily have carried out this objective long ago. Along with this article, the text of the E.T. Law will be presented. However, there are several points that I wish to make:

1211.101 Applicability. The provisions of this part apply to all NASA manned and unmanned space missions...

I could dismiss this whole controversy as a tempest in a teacup if the above passage contained the word "only", so as to read: "The provisions of this part apply only to all NASA manned and unmanned space missions..." However, it does not contain that one little word which would have made such a big difference. If the government was suddenly faced with the accomplished fact of an undeniable overt E.T. visitation, this regulation could therefore, be construed as being applicable to all space missions, NASA or non NASA, whether of terrestrial or extra-terrestrial origin. As it stands, this law is applicable to UFO contact. The meaning would have to be stretched, but the built-in loophole does exist.

1211.102 Definitions. (b) (2): Touched directly or been in close proximity to (or been exposed indirectly to )...Even without involved in a UFO close encounter would become eligible for indefinite quarantine under armed guard according to the above. By including indirect exposure, the NASA administrator is empowered to make the definition mean just about anything he wants it to. An example of indirect exposure is given, but an example is not a definition. Unless indirect exposure is defined precisely, it can mean almost anything. The possibility is not specifically ruled out that other types of indirect exposure than the example given might be considered valid grounds to "quarantine" a citizen or group of citizens.

In my opinion, it is vital that we challenge the validity of his law, for if it is allowed to stand unchallenged, UFO contactees and researchers may all meet behind barbed wire and armed guards somewhere in Alaska. I strongly urge everyone who reads the E.T. Law, Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (at the end of this article), to clip it out, and send it on to your congressman, with a demand penciled in, to repeal this absurd and potentially lethal law. We must use reason, and transcend fear in order to make this planet a place where all may live in peace and harmony, as One.

Rest of document

Love, Light & Blessings
Sharyn

**Aaron** · 10-23-2008, 05:15 AM

synchronicity

Nice synchronicity Sharyn!

The bottom sentence on that website - that was actually printed by my friend that owns The Open Line here in Spokane.

Announcement

UK Govt Released UFO Documents

UK Govt Released UFO Documents

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment