originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Informer1958
OF COURSE . . . bit by bit . . . leading up to a shocking set of events . . .
That, however, won't stop the naysayers hereon from spewing rage, haughtiness, arrogance, twerpy-ness etc. all over you and this thread.
C'mon, Box. I'm all for Disclosure. Really. I've studied this issue for decades. My conclusion is that there are several VERY compelling stories out
there, Roswell being one, Rendelsham being another. It's just that the fallout can be ludicrous, to the point that it infects the 'good stuff.' For
example, 'Day After Roswell.' Not only was Corso nuts, he was misrepresented. The conclusions in that book are nonsense. But that DOES NOT MEAN
Roswell did not happen, nor does it mean that the US Army, etc., hasn't grabbed some technology.
This FBI letter is a case in point. It's being misrepresented--not intentionally by Informer1958, who is just reporting it, but by the source. First,
it's not FROM the FBI; it's TO the FBI, one of many quack letters they get every year by a self-styled 'informant who got HIS information from a
paranormal source. And it's pretty old, written in 1947, and has been in this "FBI Vault" and available to the public for many years. It becomes
"available" every few years when someone discovers it, in this case a web site that is particularly enamored with alien/human hybrids and channeled
information. And if you look into it, you will discover it's one of many "FBI letters" that has made waves over the years.
So what happens is this is publicized yet again, and people rush in saying, "Wow! This is big!" when it isn't at all and deserves little attention.
It's kind of like when a newbie discovers Billy Meier or Steven Greer and breathlessly rushes to ATS to inform of us if this wonderful find! Well, no,
sorry, but it isn't. We've been through this before--repeatedly
If someone is truly interested in this stuff and its implications, do what someone else posting here already suggested: Read Isaac Koi's stuff. Why?
Because it is literate, informed, not at all sensationalistic, and it has context, It is by far one of the better ways to become informed on the
NONE of what I just said is "spewing rage, haughtiness, arrogance, twerpy-ness etc. all over you and this thread." It is simply pointing out one very
basic and unnecessary error about the origin of this letter, and suggesting calm and reason be brought to an emotional topic. If you really think this
letter is all about opening the gates of Disclosure and exposing government secrets, then I must suggest otherwise. It's a sad an all-too-common
example of not denying ignorance at all, but promoting it.