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.

 

Peter Jennings Reporting: UFO, Feb 24th on ABC.

page: 24
0
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Perhaps, but trying to dismiss Roswell would actually be a bad move for eventual disclosure, as it would be yet another lie to eventually be "outed" on....

To be honest, I think it's just bad journalism, not a secret agenda, and because of this bad journalism, and lack of research, there are now millions more who now dismiss Roswell as a joke, instead of the turning point that it is. So yeah, I'm a little perturbed about it...


I don't think they would ever give up Roswell, even if they disclosed more recent events. They would have to produce the debris for scientific study. No way they will do that.

I watched the special to and saw pretty much what I expected. Poor Roswell material, but overall it was a good intro for the ignorant.

Rock on Gaz


Like my new avatar?




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I DO agree that the program DID a good job in exposing how the government does not care (or pretend) they do not care about the UFO phenomena.


Great minds think alike:www.coasttocoastam.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
You're going to hate me here, but Bruce McAbee (like him or hate him) had some great work showing the lights and the sequence in which they disappeared. They took the same exact vantage point, then superimposed the night video over the day image from the vantage point (allowing you to see the mountain silhouette). The lights disappeared in the exact sequence as when they hit the mountain (suggesting they did indeed float down slowly and disappear behind the mountain).

Likewise, I've seen video footage of the flares in different settings, and it looks very similar.

Also, I've seen plenty of stills showing it certainly wasn't a very perfect line of lights...(ruling out the possibility of one solid ship).

However, from the witness testimony, and some of the other facts, such as location of the range, the initial military denial, etc. really leave one wondering. To be honest, I'm still firmly on the fence of the Phoenix Lights, as there seems to be too much evidence for both sides of the argument....



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Too bad Bruce and Steven Greer didn't make the cut on Peter Jenning's show.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Gazrok,

You need to come to Phoenix and ask the thousands who live by the foothills of South Mountains...whatever you do...dont mention flares...
They will kill you and have you for supper....



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Gazrok,

You need to come to Phoenix and ask the thousands who live by the foothills of South Mountains...whatever you do...dont mention flares...
They will kill you and have you for supper....


Like I said, it's mostly the numerous witnesses that are responsible for me being on the fence, and not completely siding with flares. I used to be firmly in the "flares" camp, but after digging a little deeper, I'm left with more questions than answers....so I'm back on the fence...

BTW: I have a friend in Phoenix, and he says there was no way those were flares...and being military, he'd likely have a better frame of reference than most...


[edit on 25-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
peter jennings was a guest on the daily show 23 februari 2005
www.btefnet.com for a torrent link.
he is speaking about ufo;s



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
On those flares, has it never been argued that the 8:30 sightings were REAL and only the 10pm sightings were the flares as part of either a military investigation or coverup?

The people that saw "solid objects" at dusk (as opposed to the lights later) aren't accounted for by the timing of the night flares.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
That explains some discrepancies I've seen.

I've only recently re-examined the case, after talking to my friend there around Christmas time, so something to look into...thanks.

BTW: Peter still needs to be lynched....



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Overall I thought that the show was done pretty well. Yes, they spent some time debunking, but I believe they left enough holes to still make people wonder. The most obvious hole was in the Roswell piece where the farmer (name?) said that the metal couldn't be dented even with a sledge hammer.

For a primetime show this gave a lot of 'new' information to people. Yes, obviously nothing new for anyone here but for a neophyte it's a lot to digest.

I wished they had gone into more details about the UFOs around the nuclear arms. They didn't even hint at the fact that the missiles went into no fire mode.

I liked the final statement "Ultimately only contact is going to resolve the mystery." That pretty much sums the show up. Seeing is believing...


Originally posted by Gabbye
HEY!! Who were some of the sponsors??????????
Seth76 You out there???? lolololol


As broadcast on KTKA 49 Topeka

Commercial Break One

Oral B - Brush Ups
Olive Garden
Ab Lounge - Exercise Equipment
Cox Communications
Carpet One
Spangles - Hamburgers

Commercial Break Two

Toyota Avalon
Dove - Cool Moisture
Kentuky Fried Chicken
Claritin-D
Smart Spin - Container & Lid organizer
ABC - Primetime Live
ABC - Blind Justice

Commercial Break Three

Purell Hand Sanitizer
Pizza Hut
Grip and Flip
ABC - Good Morning America
ABC - 20/20
WB - Warner Brothers - What I like About You
WB - Warner Brothers - Reba
WB - Warner Brothers - Blue Collar TV
Taco Bell
Stone Mountain's Flooring Outlet

Commercial Break Four

Verizon Wireless
Glad - Force Flex Trash Bags
USPS.com
Willie Nelson Songs
ABC - Lost , Alias
ABC - 20/20, Oscars Live
ABC - KTKA "Fun TV"

Commercial Break Five

Morgan Stanley
Olive Garden
Overstock.com
Jeep - Grand Cherokee
ABC - NYPD Blue
Sac & Fox Casino
Car-hop.com
Carpet One
ABC - KTKA 49 - Birth and Women's Center - Power of advertising ad sale spot
ABC - KTKA 49 - Unique Design - Power of advertising ad sale spot
ABC - KTKA 49 - Jeopardy "Fun TV" spot

Commercial Break Six

Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper (funny ad

Pizza Hut
Cold Heat - Cordless Cool Touch Soldering Tool
ABC - Blind Justice
ABC - Good Morning America
ABC - 20/20
ABC - Jeopardy - "Ultimate champion" - KTKA 49 "Fun TV" close

Commercial Break Seven

USPS.com
Kentucky Fried Chicken
NuFit Shoe Stretcher
Toyota Avalon
ABC - Primetime Live
ABC - World News Tonight
Food 4 Less



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
What was the name of the drunk guy who was with his girlfriend in roswell when the ship crashed and supposedly saw two alien bodies by the ship?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I agree about the flares...
good point RANT... i had forgoten that they could be both (sightings and flares) , due to the different times...
flares later on would make a great coverup...

about the SETI deal...
it seems to have revealed a disinfo campaign in tha making...
I never really considered that SETI is either a government coverup/disinfo campaign, or a determind goverment rogue effort to get to the truth...
but they are mutually exclusive options... and i think it is one or the other...



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

What was the name of the drunk guy who was with his girlfriend in roswell when the ship crashed and supposedly saw two alien bodies by the ship?


Jim Ragsdale....and he claimed the name of his girlfriend as "Trudy Truelove". He is not believed to be a credible witness by most UFO researchers, including Randle and Schmitt these days (they believed him at first, but then more came out). He tales got taller and taller, and no corraborating witnesses. Plus his accounts do not match others...


Gaz, have you seen the footage i am talking about?
any theories as to why they shied away from the very footage that convinced me totally and forever... that we are not alone....


I think you answered your own question. They (the media) obviously aren't willing to attach such footage to their anchor's reputation....no yet...

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

What was the name of the drunk guy who was with his girlfriend in roswell when the ship crashed and supposedly saw two alien bodies by the ship?


Jim Ragsdale....and he claimed the name of his girlfriend as "Trudy Truelove". He is not believed to be a credible witness by most UFO researchers, including Randle and Schmitt these days (they believed him at first, but then more came out). He tales got taller and taller, and no corraborating witnesses. Plus his accounts do not match others...

So they think maybe he was just making it all up for attention? Is Ragsdale still alive today?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

So they think maybe he was just making it all up for attention? Is Ragsdale still alive today?


The evidence seems to suggest it, yes. I don't believe he's still alive, but I'd have to check to be sure...as we run out of time with living witnesses, the government has less and less witnesses that can refute it's version of events...we are talking 58 years ago...

EDIT: Seems he died in '95...

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I was hoping they would have discussed the 2-25-42 Los Angeles event. Six people died from the shelling.




[edit on 25-2-2005 by tacho]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
You wanted to say that this thread has broken some type of ATS record for being the fastest growing thread with the smallest amount of days behind it. In a couple of hours it will be in the Top 100 viewed threads of ATS of all time.




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

I was hoping they would have discussed the 2-25-42 Los Angeles event. Six people died from the shelling.


Why? So they could explain how they were firing at "war jitters" for almost an hour, with over 4300 rounds of AAA??? And the slow moving object seen by hundreds was really just some kind of miraculous weather balloon that never seemed to take a hit?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by "jennings illegitimate son" (love that, hehe..)

Thoughts On The Jennings Special

Hello, all. Longtime reader, first time poster. I've got a few thoughts on the ABC special last night; I'd love to hear your comments.

- First off, kudos to ABC on at least one count. I believe the line was, "The government wanted the problem to go away..." And they did make the problem 'go away' by ridiculing those who reported what they saw. Enter Project Blue Book, etc. etc. The point is, ABC acknowledged that the U.S. government MADE THE PROBLEM DISAPPEAR. Well, gee, why would they do that?? Is it because UFOs are real and they pose a very real threat to national security??? Hrmmm...


That would of course, be a prime motivation. The real straw breaking the camel's back seemed to be the Washington UFOs in '52, so then we see the involvment of other groups to get the USAF out of BlueBook gracefully, (i.e. Robertson Panel, Condon Committee (CIA sponsored) )


- Second, why was Stanton Friedman reduced to a blurb, while that tool Karl Pflock got air time a-plenty to debunk Roswell??


Obviously their agenda for the Roswell segment was to totally dismiss it, so no mention of Stan's PHD, top secret clearances, or prior classified government work. (and yes, Pflock is a tool)


- Isn't it true that Project Mogul didn't even exist until 1952?! Why wasn't the Air Force's story held up to the same scrutiny as others' testimony? Jesse Marcel would have known what he was looking at if it was 'just a weather balloon' don't you think??


No, Project Mogul did exist in '47. "High Dive" (the USAF explanation for the dummies) didn't exist until '52 or later.
They didn't scrutinize the AF explanation because they just accepted it (and ignored the fact that the '94 report was mostly focused on dismissing the reports of bodies with High Dive, not reinforcing the Mogul explanation). Yes, I think that Marcel, or even a 10 year old could have told you it was tin-foil and balsa wood, if indeed it was Mogul, so yes, it's pretty absurd to think that all of this hullaballoo was for a balloon.


- Why wasn't the Ramey memo taken into account??? You want a smoking gun?? Here it is! Undeniable photographic proof that it was NOT, I repeat, NOT a weather balloon!


Again, it didn't reinforce their point, so they didn't address it, very irresponsible journalism here...

- Why wasn't John Mack given any air time, while his Harvard colleagues and detractors were given the last word on the abduction phenomona??

See above, same explanation....


..That's all that's come to mind at the moment; I'm sure I'll think of more, but in the meantime, any comments and criticism are surely welcome!


Since in a closed thread, thought I'd answer....



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Actually, the special last night played it off like the government in the early 50's wanted the UFO hysteria to "just disappear" because of the clogged phone lines from civilians calling in reporting UFO sightings.

They considered that a serious problem because in the event of an attack from the soviet union, that would cause a huge communications problem. THAT was the threat to national security they were implying in the special. Who knows what the actual reason was though.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join