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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Fab 50's: UFO Investigations and The "Debunkery" Agenda

page: 1
23
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
As most of you already know, Project Blue Book was created because several influential Air Force generals were unsatisfied with the way the Air Force was handling UFO investigations. Project Blue Book was formed on March, 1952 and investigated many UFO sightings in the 1950’s, continuing right through the 1960’s, until it was terminated on December 1969. However, in the early 50’s the CIA was apparently getting nervous because of the many high profile sightings that were making the headlines, as well as the public’s fervent interest in UFOs. After an increase of hundreds of UFO sightings over a span of several months in late 1952, the CIA put together the Robertson Panel, which was “headed by Dr. H. P. Robertson, a physicist of the California Institute of Technology, which included various physicists, meteorologists, and engineers, and one astronomer (Hynek). The Robertson Panel first met on January 14, 1953 in order to formulate a response to the overwhelming public interest in UFOs.”

Many people were convinced “that the Robertson Panel was recommending controlling public opinion through a program of official propaganda and spying. They also believe these recommendations helped shape Air Force policy regarding UFO study not only immediately afterward, but also into the present day.” The Robertson Panel “recommended that the Air Force de-emphasize the subject of UFOs and embark on a debunking campaign to lessen public interest. They suggested debunkery through the mass media, including Walt Disney Productions and using psychologists, astronomers, and celebrities to ridicule the phenomenon and put forward prosaic explanations.”



en.wikipedia.org...

It could be argued that “disinformation” regarding unsolved UFO cases began in the early 50’s, because of the suggestions made by the Robertson Panel to the Air Force.

DISINFORMATION:

"is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. Disinformation may include distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading dangerous rumours and fabricated intelligence."

en.wikipedia.org...

To this day, UFO researchers continue to fight an uphill battle against hoaxes, disinformation and the reluctance of government agencies to release factual reports and physical evidence proving once and for all that extraterrestrial craft exist.

In addition to disinformation and “debunkery”, the Air Force came up with several Regulations that would further prevent any unsolved UFO case from being leaked to the general public:


“As an immediate consequence of the Robertson Panel recommendations, in February 1953, the Air Force issued Regulation 200-2, ordering air base officers to publicly discuss UFO incidents only if they were judged to have been solved, and to classify all the unsolved cases to keep them out of the public eye.”



“In December 1953, Joint Army-Navy-Air Force Regulation number 146 made it a crime for military personnel to discuss classified UFO reports with unauthorized persons. Violators faced up to two years in prison and/or fines of up to $10,000.”

en.wikipedia.org...

I found some proof that the Air Force followed the Robertson Panel’s suggestion of limiting their involvement in UFO investigations, from an unclassified document that I found on the CIA’s website. This memorandum was written by the chief of the Scientific Intelligence (SI) Physics and Electronics Division and sent to the Assistant Director, on December, 17 1953. The subject of this document is, “Current Status of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) Project.” In it he states that the Air Force was decreasing its interest in UFO’s and that much of the UFO investigations were being carried out by the ATIC (Air Technical Intelligence Center). The ATIC received and checked UFO reports and performed checks “against meteorological, astronomical, aircraft and balloon data.” The AFIC also employed the services of a secretary “operating as the Aerial Phenomena Section of the Electronics Branch, Technical Analysis Division.” This secretary also was involved with the release of UFO reports to the general public, dealing directly with the Public Information Office of the USAF. I doubt that the Public Information Office released any significant information to the general public regarding the UFO phenomenon during this time period....except for UFO incidents that were easily explained. The chief also states in this brief report that about 10% of all UFO sightings were “tagged as unsolved.”
www.cia.gov...
www.cia.gov...

During the mid to late 50’s, there were many “unidentified” UFO sightings witnessed or tracked on radar by military personnel. The reports made by Air Force Commanders went through many “channels” before becoming “classified”, unsolved cases. IMO, this was due to the two previously mentioned Regulations; Regulation 200-2 and Regulation number 146. Thanks to a civil action lawsuit filed on October 1980, against the National Security Agency, by Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy, some of these “classified” documents are now available for public viewing. It was on the NSA.gov website that I found an interesting UFO report that occurred in the late 50’s that involved radar “tracks”, a civilian aircraft and an Air Force jet. This “Air Intelligence Information Report” was about unidentified flying objects that were sighted and tracked in the Panama Canal Zone, on March 9-10, 1958. It also makes a reference to Regulation 200-2, by stating, "Air Force Commanders have instructions from the Department of the Air Force which cover reporting on subject (AFR-200-2: "Unidentified Flying Objects Reporting, Short Title: (UFOB).” The following information is from this report:
fas.org...
www.nsa.gov...
www.nsa.gov... declassified-documents/ufo/assets/files/report_air_force_security_office.pdf


edit on 9/6/2016 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   
The report was written by Capt. Vernon D. Adams, USAF, Asst. Director of Intelligence (Caribbean Air Command), on March 18, 1958. He states in this report that “a number of unidentified radar tracks were observed 9-10 March 1958 by search and tracking radar located in the Canal Zone.” He was referring to the Panama Canal Zone and also made a statement that “Personnel stationed at sites reported seeing red and green lights but no noise was associated with lights.” He also mentions about aircraft being launched to investigate an unidentified flying object with “negative results.” However, if you read the entire report, it becomes quite clear that one object sighted on March 10, 1958 didn’t maneuver like “normal” known aircraft and should’ve been classified a “positive result.”

The first radar “hit” of this unidentified aircraft occurred on March 9, 1958. It was received by the AAOC (764th Anti Aircraft Operations Center) located at Fort Clayton, which is located near the Pacific opening of the Panama Canal. It was latter identified as a Chilean Airlines plane, which eventually landed at Tocumen Airport in Panama. Soon after the Chilean Airline plane appeared on the radar screen, two additional “blips” were tracked near Fort Kobbe in the Canal Zone. There were no other known aircraft in the area other than the Chilean Airlines plane. A “lock” was made by a Target Radar Unit located at Fort Amador in the Canal Zone. Once the objects were locked onto, the Target Radar Unit discovered that these objects were 100 yards apart, flying in a steady, circular path over Fort Kobbe. Their altitude varied from two to ten thousand feet and the prevailing weather was clear with no wind reported. Radar Site personnel from Fort Amador then attempted to observe these objects by deploying searchlights. When the searchlight made contact with the objects, “they traveled from an altitude of two thousand feet to ten thousand feet in five to ten seconds.” The Track Radar Unit soon lost the track lock on these objects because of their sudden, rapid speed. However, since the Radar Unit was able to lock onto these unidentified flying objects, “it was assumed that the objects were solid.” The Air Force stated latter that there were no weather balloons in the air at the time these objects were tracked.

Tocumen Airport:


Fort Clayton:

Fort Kobbe:

Fort Amador:

Another unidentified flying object was sighted by search radar located on Taboga Island in the Republic of Panama on March 10, 1958. It was noted that this object was flying erratically in a triangular shaped pattern on a partly cloudy day. The report states that this object’s speed varied “from hovering to @ one thousand miles an hour.” An extract from the log concerning this object’s movement also states, “Blip very practical, has reached speed of 900K then slows to a complete stop for several minutes before moving again.” A USAF Lockheed T-33 jet trainer was dispatched from Howard AFB in Panama to confirm the UFO sighting. The log states, “UFO was observed to avoid jet. As soon as jet got close, UFO appeared to move away for several miles, then stop.”

Tabooga Island Radar Facility:

Howard AFB:

Lockheed T-33:

No aircraft in 1958 (including today) could move from a “hovering” state to a thousand miles an hour, or speed up to avoid an USAF jet, then “stop.” Also, in 1958 the fastest Russian jet fighter was the MIG 19, which was capable of a top speed of 900 MPH. The MIG 17 was even slower, with a max speed of 711 MPH. Russia's MIG 21 wasn’t deployed until 1959 and it had a top speed of 1390 MPH. Neither MIG could “hover” or “stop” during a flight!

MIG 17:

MIG19:

This report actually includes information from a third sighting of an unidentified flying object which happened on March 11, 1958. An Operations Officer from Fort Clayton reported that he received information from a Pan American Airlines pilot concerning a UFO. The pilot was flying a DC-6 and he observed this UFO traveling in a Southeasterly direction and stated that the object looked larger than his aircraft (DC-6).

DC-6:

After reading this report, one can conclude that these UFO’s were solid, they emitted colored lights, they made no noise, they moved erratically at times, sometimes their movement “appears at times to be evasive action”, they could travel a thousand miles an hour and apparently they could hover and stop mid flight. Just imagine the number of unsolved reports that are still “unclassified” and will never see the light of day because they provide “positive results” proving that extraterrestrial craft are visiting our planet.


edit on 9/6/2016 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/6/2016 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/6/2016 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/6/2016 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   

After reading this report, one can conclude that these UFO’s were solid, they emitted colored lights, they made no noise, they moved erratically at times, sometimes their movement “appears at times to be evasive action”, they could travel a thousand miles an hour and apparently they could hover and stop mid flight.
Yes, various reports suggest that. Tell me, is there any single report which includes all of these factors? If not, what reason is there to assume they all have the same origin rather than being separate (and unexplained) phenomena? If such incredible characteristics were not attributable to a single incident, how can they be wrapped into the ET blanket?

edit on 9/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   
It should be noted that the USAF had removed all references to Janap146 & AF 55-11 which directed military personnel to report their sightings through CIRVIS, and by doing that they essentially prolonged/continued the cover-up. In fact, in deciding the fate of Bluebook, or the future rather, there's a high up admin (General or Admiral, can't recall) that stated, "we already classify the important cases with 146, so why does this even matter, scrap it" (or to that effect).

It was a Canadian document that blew the lid off that system of reporting if memory serves correctly.

Also, on Bluebook overall, it was a cover up. The Robertson panel, even worse not only ignored the empirical evidence (aka: committed scientific fraud) just like the Condon Committee would later do... it recommended "debunkery, through the mass media & authority figures, scientists, psychologists, celebrities, etc" (or something to that effect).

In other words, it was a 100% fraud on the American Public, and cover-up. And its shown to be that. No question.

Also, the COMETA report in France, finally offered an unbiased review on the UFO phenomenon, they concluded UFOs are indeed real, and they are most likely to be ETs.

To know more about how the cover up was perpetuated in the media, and by direct involvement by the CIA, I would recommend Terry Hanson: Missing Times (Book) or search on Youtube for a good conference he did, "UFO CrashCON"



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

After reading this report, one can conclude that these UFO’s were solid, they emitted colored lights, they made no noise, they moved erratically at times, sometimes their movement “appears at times to be evasive action”, they could travel a thousand miles an hour and apparently they could hover and stop mid flight.
...what reason is there to assume they all have the same origin rather than being separate (and unexplained) phenomena? If such incredible characteristics were not attributable to a single incident, how can they be wrapped into the ET blanket?


You can always reference the COMETA study, since Bluebook was a scientific fraud on the American public, looking at the conclusions they reached is nonsensical. If you want to study the empirical evidence within, Im guessing an intellectually honest person will come to the same conclusion as the French did:

France - the COMETA Study - involved not only COMETA (Committee for in-depth Studies), CNES (French NASA) GEPAN (UFO Research group) and

They concluded:


No natural phenomenon can account for the majority of observation reports accompanied by electromagnetic detections made by one or several radars. Both the defense services and air traffic control have been confronted a number of times around the world with unknown aerial intrusions or artificially induced phenomena.”



The behavior of these devices during encounters with fighter jets or interceptors – some have participated in real swirling battles in the U.S. – suggests they are controlled, guided or led by particularly sophisticated automation.



*“remarkable accelerations of the craft right after a stationary mode,” the report indicates: “We feel that we must reject the thesis of a terrestrial origin for all the observations made since World War Two. Indeed, if a nation of the world had been able to secretly develop such an armada of exotic craft, like those observed for more than half a century, the means of analysis and strategic logistics available would have permitted their rapid identification.
>>The illegal overflights which they have been guilty of conducting could constitute a casus belli [cause for war].”...“the above features suggest that in many cases the devices detected, far from being unidentified, are easily recognizable by the aerial defense agencies as part of a technology far ahead of ours.


The related Sigma/3AF & COMETA reports concluded non-terrestiral craft were the most likely explanation and while it was controversial when it was released - Sigma 3AF Report Here they stuck to the original findings:


“Thus, the central hypothesis proposed by the COMETA report still cannot be rejected up to this day and remains perfectly credible,” they wrote. “Many documents and materials examined by the authors of this report confirm it. We have therefore retained, among some others but only as a working hypothesis, the possibility that most of the craft observed can have a non-terrestrial origin.”


The COMETA Report - uh oh, might be a dead link (hate it when that happens), so many dead links in this subject....hold on - Here's a working source.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho
I am aware of COMETA, thank you.

The same criticism applies. Wrapping widely disparate accounts (with scant physical evidence of any sort) in a single blanket is not a valid approach. Assuming a single origin to a wide array, is just that. An assumption.

And, it should be noted, COMETA had no sanction from anyone but itself.
edit on 9/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Even if the spin on the various committees and their alleged agendas is true, getting people to actively put forward credible explanations for observed phenomena that don't involve aliens and their spaceships does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there were actually little green men involved in the sightings, or even that these sightings were genuine.

In the eyes of conspiracy theorists disinformation seems largely to be just information they don't like.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


And, it should be noted, COMETA had no sanction from anyone but itself.


What is that, a reverse appeal to authority(?). Did I not word it properly? It was the former heads of those agencies. So they were aware and competent, that was all that was intended by the inclusion of the information.




Wrapping widely disparate accounts (with scant physical evidence of any sort) in a single blanket is not a valid approach. Assuming a single origin to a wide array, is just that.


The problem is you are ignoring a major detail and misrepresenting the entirety of the status of investigation.

1-UFOs are real, and represent a physical phenomena, one that transcends borders, laws, etc., and apparently breaks physics in many cases. Anyone who reviews the empirical data will come to this conclusion (if they are being intellectually honest).

2-The leading hypothesis is that they are ET Origin, but Jacques Vallee proposed IDH, the Inter-dimensional-hypothsis, and there are a few others too. (Time Travel, Alternate plane of existence colliding/interacting with ours, etc)

The most important part being that ET hypothesis is the leading theory, based on the cumulative base of scientific knowledge we have. As for "assumptions" or "guessing", you are arguing a straw man (I can't find "ET" or "alien" in the OP at all--but you brought it up). All the leading scientists simply say the truth embargo/cover-up/rejection, or whatever you want to call it needs to be dropped.

When that happens, then all [boxed up/classified] information would/or could (in theory) be presented, which means the ET hypothesis might be confirmed in a single day. The fact there are sightings, abductions and other reports dating back into antiquity, and they fit with the understanding of the universe (ET's vs...you know...like..."ghosts" or something), they are likely the answer.

Now, the question is why are people so intent to continue to cover up and ignore this subject. It's bizarre when you consider its probably the single most important step in our next step of evolution (social & physical).


edit on 6-9-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

What is that, a reverse appeal to authority(?).
Maybe. To be specific, it was pointing out that COMETA was a backslapping group. Not unlike MUFON.


The problem is you are ignoring a major detail and misrepresenting the entirety of the status of investigation.
The problem is you are ignoring the the actual facts. The fact that, yes, there are reports of unexplained aerial phenomena but that there is nothing which connects them except that they are unexplained.


Now, the question is why are people so intent to continue to cover up and ignore this subject.
Experimental aircraft and electronic warfare tech would be a good reason. Neither of which you want to be general knowledge if you're a military type.



edit on 9/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Even if the spin on the various committees and their alleged agendas is true, getting people to actively put forward credible explanations for observed phenomena that don't involve aliens and their spaceships does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there were actually little green men involved in the sightings, or even that these sightings were genuine.

In the eyes of conspiracy theorists disinformation seems largely to be just information they don't like.
Might you disclose an explanation of such disinformation?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Yes, various reports suggest that. Tell me, is there any single report which includes all of these factors?

Yah, the one I saw. Blue light, Impossible speed, totally silent, abrupt, angular change of direction with no radius of turn, disappearing into the only cloud in a perfectly clear night sky.

Sorry I didn't have any radar with me back in the late 7o's to lock onto it. Or a camera, or know were all the people that I was with have gone.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Good thread..

But meh.. once you've experienced the unexplained or profound, and if your mind didn't snap in the progress..
There's not a thing they can say that will suddenly put you back in the box.

For at that point.. your dealing with a whole new box.
I do understand why the program exists however, weak minds need protection.. it offer's a way back to the bubble, the grind.. the mundane safety of our construct "reality"

The second level of this is another bubble.. groups like "Ashtar/Michael" and galactic fed offer another cushy net to fall in where you still get to "believe" but your controlled by the "channelers" and you act accordingly and share your tales among yourselves.

Then there's the free range chickens.. we're like a thorn some days.. but we know the rules and see the game.
We don't "believe'.. we know.
for us it is fact there's more than we're told, and it pains us to see those who know more misdirect and mock.. but we do understand why.. even if it is criminally negligent.. we console ourselves knowing at least we are not guilty of that crime against humanity.. we tried to speak up, point out the important bits.. and move along, avoiding the trap of cults and pre conditioned ideas, and the debate thereof.


edit on 6-9-2016 by Xarian6 because: words



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


The problem is you are ignoring the the actual facts. The fact that, yes, there are reports of unexplained aerial phenomena but that there is nothing which connects them except that they are unexplained.




False. You are ignoring the actual facts or are just ignorant of them. You are also making a false assumption, "nothing links them so they are unexplained". What does that even mean?? They are unexplained yes, but a mountain of evidence related to them is classified. Incidents like Kecksberg, et al, where witnessed recorded NASA or USAF involvement, but when asked for files they were 'lost', 'missing' or simply 'do not exist' ----at what point did these agencies stop recording events? They didn't. The documents are classified.

If you did a drug trial but told the lab involved they are not allowed to include or even have access to 90% of the clinical trial data, and then made a conclusion off that, is that science? No, it's scientific fraud.

This is the paradigm that's been created in UFO research. "Advocates" falsely stating "we need hard scientific evidence", while burying or misrepresenting what does exist. Because we lack scientific evidence... which is being withheld, because of that we can only make a circumstantial case. (Why is circumstantial evidence important? Because that's where a congressional oversight committee would decide how to pursue scientific discovery [including but not limited to: access to those hidden files.]) Just as we had confessional hearings during the BLUEBOOK era (except they lied and misrepresented the evidence!)

Contrary to this narrative though....

There are numerous cases that produce similar physical evidence (dried dirt where crafts were witnessed by multiple people, holes in the ground, etc) & the dirt, reacted differently to water afterward, or it had signs of being altered by radiation or similar influence. You also have cases exhibiting various similar or identical characteristics. In other words, you have physical evidence (and other) which absolutely links these phenomena together.

This alone suggests more than simply "unexplained phenomena" as if that's a legitimate conclusion to draw. These bits of empirical data, suggests a link or commonality between many incidents. That alone is enough to support the hypothesis being made. Your alternative hypothesis is what exactly, that it's nothing? (????????????????)

LOL!!!

Is that a new thing in science where instead of explaining or seeking explanations, instead of seeking discovery we bury our heads in the sand? Haha - "We were about to search for a cure - re: this new disease, but no one has sequenced it genetically yet, so it's proven not to exist! We cannot seek treatments for this condition, because it doesn't exist!

How does this work in comparison to how other discovery is achieved? It doesn't work at all. There's obviously something causing it from being properly addressed, that caused numerous military & scientific establishment personnel to lie & misrepresent the data. Data I would point out, that in many cases have noted similarities or common even exact variables or details, suggesting various cases are inherently linked.

Off the top of my head, there are 3 cases across 60 years that all noted a connection to the smell of ammonia. Two of them identified brown faced beings.... (It might not be the best example, but it's an example nonetheless.


For instance, in 1933, and in 1954 and again in 1999


Summer, 1933 Chrysville (Pennsylvania). A man observed a faint violet light in a field between this town and Morres-
town. Walking to it, he found an ovoid object 3 m in diameter and 2 m thick with a circular opening similar to a vault door. Pushing it, he found the room full of violet light and observed many instruments, no occupant. Smell of ammonia. (APRO Jul., 64)



Mar., 1954 Santa Maria (Brazil). Rubem Hellwig was driving when he saw a football-shaped machine, the size of a
Volkswagen, on the ground. He walked toward it and met two men of slim build, normal height, their faces brownish, wearing no helmets. One was inside the object while the other collected grass samples. They spoke to Hellwig in a strange language, and yet he said he understood they were asking for ammonia. He directed them to a nearby town. The craft vanished silently and instantly with blue and yellow flames. (1; Humanoids 33)


And again ...


Brazil 1996 Varginha UFO incident

The Silva sisters said they fled and told mother they had seen the "devil" (an appearance described as 'brown faced skin, with red eyes. The woman did not believe them up until she went to the area where they had allegedly seen the creature, and smelled a strong ammonia-like odor, and found nothing but its footsteps and a dog sniffing the place. After relating their tale to family and friends, rumors began to spread throughout the city regarding UFO sightings and alien creatures being abducted by the military forces. Two days later, another creature was allegedly found lying along a road. Three military trucks were supposedly sent to retrieve it.


en.wikipedia.org...

www.ufocasebook.com...

So we can pretend that UFOs (a real phenomena) which record a physical presence on the Earth, which violate national boundaries and military protocol, which engage in behaviour that would be constituted as an act of war (if carried out by nation states) are all some fantastical, independent phenomena, which are all totally independent of each other, and each case, has nothing to do with any other (In the 70s, 60,000+ cases were referenced in a presentation to the UN during the Grenada proposal.....)

....we can pretend that this is some kind of phenomena, wherein each incident is totally independent of each other, and then make a false conclusion that absolutely nothing can be determined from it. OR we can do what would be done in every other scientific discipline (Archeology or Anthropology for instance) and make a calculated effort to interpret the data, and work on supporting or falsifying that hypothesis as time goes on with legitimate investigation. (e.g. the Scientific Method.)

The leading theory, at the current time....being the ET or Visitation Hypothesis. Of course, science is not owned by a single person. So MANY alternative hypotheses can exist, and each scientist interested in the subject, can pursue as they see fit, to challenge or support the various kinds.

What is your hypothesis again? That it's "nothing". Can we prove nothing. Is proving a negative possible?


The elephant in the room of course, is that there is already an undeniable answer to this question, known by very select few group p of people within the military industrial complex, possibly the Vatican & other politically powerful networks. And that of course is not a scientific conclusion but based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence of course, is enough to put a man in jail for life, to even take his life in a number of states. It should be enough to warrant a proper disclosure of information. Hence the need for scientific fraud during BLUEBOOK.


edit on 6-9-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

You are also making a false assumption, "nothing links them so they are unexplained". What does that even mean??

That's not what he said.
he said:

The fact that, yes, there are reports of unexplained aerial phenomena but that there is nothing which connects them except that they are unexplained.

Meaning one "unexplained" or "unidentified" thing cant be assumed to be connected to another "unexplained" or "unidentified" thing until they are identified. The thing that connects them is that they are all reported by people...and then investigated by ufologists...which then gets reinterpreted by people on the internet...forever.



edit on 6-9-2016 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2016 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho




You are also making a false assumption, "nothing links them so they are unexplained". What does that even mean??


What does it mean? you just made it up as Phage didn't say that, look at what you quoted.

It says the only thing that does link them is that they are unexplained.

Edit: sorry for repeating what Zeta says above, buts its no wonder Ufology is where it is today, so many things taken out of context or simply made up due to an incorrect interpretation of whats said which leads to assumptions and opinion based in incorrect interpretation taken to be factual buy people that read them.

Repeated on another web site or by another "researcher" and to some it becomes evidence backed by 2 separate sources.
edit on 6-9-2016 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho



If you did a drug trial but told the lab involved they are not allowed to include or even have access to 90% of the clinical trial data, and then made a conclusion off that, is that science? No, it's scientific fraud.

Isn't the number of unexplained cases something like 5%? That means that 95% of UFO cases are explained. That also means that those explained cases were once thought to be UFOs without any way to distinguish them from anything else. Yet when I go to a ufo Web site, those cases that make up those 95% are no where to be found. So this "mountain of evidence" that everyone likes to talk about is rather insignificant when compared to the rest of the evidence. And you are correct that it's dishonest.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho


The leading theory, at the current time....being the ET or Visitation Hypothesis

Is that the leading theory amongst ufo experts on the Internet?

Obviously it's not the leading theory in any main stream science that I know of.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: boncho


The leading theory, at the current time....being the ET or Visitation Hypothesis

Is that the leading theory amongst ufo experts on the Internet?

Obviously it's not the leading theory in any main stream science that I know of.


If your talking about that 5% of ufo sightings that cannot be explained, I would say from what I have read, and seen from some high profile people, many of whom are either PHd's, like this one. or Physisists like this guy who believe like I do and many others do, think we are being visited, and watched.
edit on 06pm30pm5091 by data5091 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Sceptics seem to doubt and ignore believable testimony from witnesses who have had encounters with UFOs and/or have heard Government agents utter veiled threats and confiscate irrefutable evidence. Why does this happen? Like I suggested in my post, I believe this is done because our Government knows the truth and refuses to let the public know. Why? I have no clue, but this all started back in the 50's with the creation of the Robertson Panel. They suggested safeguards to prevent actual evidence from being leaked to the public. The Air Force and other Military branches, as well as covert black op programs, intimidate their personnel from disclosing ANY type of unsolved UFO related information. My late father retired as a Lt. Colonel in the USAF after having served from 1940-1964 and it was like pulling teeth asking him questions about UFOs. I understand the scepticism regarding this subject and appreciate the fact that there are people who need proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt." However, I feel there is enough strong circumstantial evidence to believe that the "unexplained" UFO cases deal with technology not from this planet.

I think Richard Haines, a former research scientist from the NASA Ames Research Center has a good idea in calling UFOs, "unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP)" that might cover “a wide range of atmospheric phenomena and effects that might well be extraterrestrial craft, but they might well be something quite different that science doesn’t understand yet.”


Haines was once a UFO skeptic until he started hearing reports from commercial pilots who shared their UFO experiences with him. He eventually created an organization called the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP), which serves as a confidential reporting venue for pilots, crews and air traffic controllers who are otherwise afraid to make UFO reports. “I was trying to be a conscientious scientist and let the chips fall where they may and I immediately found a great deal of bias and fear by people who shouldn’t be afraid. Science should not be afraid,”


As far as Government agents intimidating witnesses and confiscating evidence, this article also provides great insight into this issue. The article discusses the 1986 UFO case reported by the crew of a Japan Airlines 747. They were flying over Alaska when they spotted two unidentified objects keeping up with their plane. The pilot then witnessed a huge, bright, circular craft that he described as being four times larger than the 747 he was flying.


“When the controller checked with military people, they said they did have a target [on radar] — not just one target, but a double primary target,” said John Callahan, former head of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Accidents, Evaluations and Investigations Division in the 1980s. “When the pilot first reported the UFO, he said it was a huge ball of light and about four times bigger than the 747 he was flying,” Callahan told The Huffington Post. The more than 30-minute close encounter ended when the UFO vanished. But the most telling part of this case is the aftermath when Callahan was contacted by the CIA. “I get a call from this guy in the CIA who tells me he wants to talk to me about the UFO. I said, ‘What UFO?’ He said, ‘The one that was in Alaska.’” The next day, Callahan found himself at a meeting with individuals from Pres. Ronald Reagan’s scientific staff, the CIA and FBI, where he was told to hand all the materials about the case over to them. “After I showed them the materials three times, one of the scientists stood up asking questions about the radar. Finally, another man stepped forward and said, ‘OK,’ and he pointed to the screen and said, ‘This event never happened. We were never here. We’re confiscating all this data and you’re all sworn to secrecy.’

www.huffingtonpost.com... hannel_n_935847.html

I think the above case offers some strong circumstantial evidence proving the Government is covering up evidence that prove these are unknown alien craft, by intimidating witnesses and confiscating all pertinent evidence.

How about several more examples of the Government covering up evidence?


On July 7, 1947 William Rhodes took a picture of a strange object in Arizona. The pictures were published in a Phoenix newspaper and several other publications. An Army Air Force intelligence officer and a member of the FBI soon met with Rhodes and talked him into turning over the negatives. They then told him he would not be getting them back. The pictures ended up in classified Air Force UFO reports.



In 1958, Donald Keyhole, a retired US Marine and UFO specialist, appeared on TV. His commentary about UFOs was “pre-censored” by the Air Force. As the show went on, when he tried to interject original statements that were not in the “pre-censored” script, the network cut his sound, saying later that he was about to violate security standards. Conspiracy theorists believe that what he was about to reveal were several unknown military studies that make the assertion that UFOs were interplanetary.

www.ufoinsight.com... -up-its-for-your-own-good/



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian


The thread below goes into more detail about the true number of Bluebook's 'unexplained' reports and studies carried out for the U.S. Government by organisations like the Battelle Institute.


Official UFO Unexplained Report Percentages.



When it came to the findings of Bluebook Special Report 14 they concluded 'the better the quality of the sighting report, the more likely it was unexplainable'; that 'UNKNOWNS were observed for longer than KNOWNS' and that less than 2% of reports fell in the hoax category..



To be classed as an unknown, a UFO report also had to be "good," meaning that it had to come from a competent observer and had to contain a reasonable amount of data...



Apparently about 30 or 40 per cent of Bluebook cases may have been 'miscategorized' by the USAF as 'identified' and the true number of credible cases grossly underestimated -also, there were serious claims that the Bluebook team from the 1960's went back and sutbstituted official summary cards for unexplained cases 'to reduce the number of unknowns at any cost' so when it comes to the actual stats they all may be a bit fudged.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2 >>

log in

join