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.

 

Steven Greer - ‘Unacknowledged’ ,Untangled and Unbelievable!

page: 5
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr

CSI has their own distorted reality that they judge things from. Not a credible source.




posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: joelr

CSI has their own distorted reality that they judge things from. Not a credible source.

So dispute the facts in the article, please.

Harte



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: mirageman
Now talking of the moon....


A UFO intercepting a nuclear missile under test from Vandenburg AF base in 1964 is discussed by Lt Robert Jacobs. The missile was not armed and was merely a dummy. Jacobs was assigned to the test as telescope site commander and claims that when viewing the film later it showed a UFO firing beams of light at the missile under test.


Bob Jacobs tells the same story for CNN

However his tale has been refuted by the project initiator and engineer Kingston A. George on numerous occasions.


........photography showed that the decoys did not deploy properly after the main propulsion phase ended and were surrounded by pieces of Styrofoam packing from their launch tubes. Thus, the “real” warhead, released before the decoys and without the packing, stuck out like a sore thumb.

The Strategic Air Command (SAC) headquarter analysts subsequently recognized this as a shortcoming of a major weapons system and classified the film as top secret. Film footage seen up to the time of this new classification was the origin of Jacobs’s fantasy, as his security level was not high enough to handle the film or talk about it after re-classification. Nor was mine, at that time, but my clearance level was increased very soon thereafter.

Full story & Source : www.csicop.org...


You can, of course, choose who to believe. But if aliens were really after nuclear weapons why bother taking this particular ‘dummy’ one out when over 2,000 nuclear weapons have been tested to date?

Moving on - Bob Salas retells the Malmstrom story of a UFO shutting down missiles.


Salas is another witness who didn’t actually see anything for himself during an alleged UFO incident. He was in a control bunker below ground. He claims UFOs were reported by guards at Malmstrom Air Force in 1967 before the nuclear missiles started shutting down one by one.

The story is disputed to this day but official conclusions were that mechanical failure rather than UFOs caused the missile faults. See: timhebert.blogspot.co.uk...

Salas still has his supporters but the documented evidence does not back him up.



Source : P11 - Sunlite 3-2

And so....it’s good to see Richard Doty return and tell us that aliens were watching the nuclear detonations of WWII and arrived here to figure out what was going on. It is never explained how they detected these explosions, nor where the aliens came from.





Wow, so that Jacobs story has been debunked. Hmmm, god damn it. Is the Salas story fully debunked too?

This is dissapointing but really good to know the truth.

Anyway, Steven Greer is full of B.S.
I'm starting to think every ufo story is just some form of BS.


How does this mean Jacobs story has been debunked?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: muzzleflash

I have a really nuanced view on this whole subject though:
E.T. is almost certainly real and visiting Earth, but all of the people who discuss E.T. in any depth are generally talking out of their # because they far too often claim specifics that they'd have no way of knowing either way.


You do realize you are admitting your entire abduction story was not real by making this statement don't you?


No.

I said "they claim slecifics they have no way of knowing".

I was referring to when people claim stuff like they are inter dimensional or arent physical, etc. Like what does that even mean.

You are freaking desperate man, what gives? Why so hellbent?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Here is your original post:

I have a really nuanced view on this whole subject though: E.T. is almost certainly real and visiting Earth, but all of the people who discuss E.T. in any depth are generally talking out of their # because they far too often claim specifics that they'd have no way of knowing either way.

Let's look at your first statement:

"E.T. is almost certainly real and visiting Earth"

The word "almost" is not absolute. You are implying E.T. are only a possibility. I would think after your supposed E.T. abduction you would make a strong and absolute statement like, "I know E.T. are real because I was recently abducted."

Then your next statement:

but all of the people who discuss E.T. in any depth are generally talking out of their # because they far too often claim specifics that they'd have no way of knowing either way.

"All of the people" includes you. So, in this single statement you are discrediting your very own story. It was very detailed and had a lot of specifics.

I'm just pointing out the discrepancies in your comments in this thread regarding E.T. and your recent supposed abduction. Your comments are contradictory.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

Just because I have an abduction story doesn't mean it was automatically aliens though.

It could have been super advanced time traveling humans, or Nazis from the hollow Earth using powerful mental manipulation tech, or whatever. I don't know 100% for sure, but I'd think it's probably 99% odds favoring E.T.

It's not contradictory at all to take into consideration alternative possibilities.
That doesn't discredit anything.

My story wasn't very detailed or descriptive at all, most things I mentioned are so ambiguous that I honestly don't know what they mean or what to make of them or anything.

My main point of contention however when posting that was the misuse of terminology like "inter-dimensional" to describe E.T. which doesn't actually make sense. (eg. there are only 3 dimensions length width height, what do they mean inter-dimensional? Do they really mean phase shifting or do they mean they are from a totally different parallel universe or just visiting through a wormhole from a far off location rather than using warp drive engines to get here??).
edit on 10/23/2017 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I celebrate this mans entire catalog



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

That would be like combing through a Sorcha Fal article on Before Its News.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Harte

That would be like combing through a Sorcha Fal article on Before Its News.

Pretty much what I expected.
So, the facts in the article stand, whether you like the source or not.

Harte



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Harte

That would be like combing through a Sorcha Fal article on Before Its News.

Pretty much what I expected.
So, the facts in the article stand, whether you like the source or not.

Harte


I read your article. I think I'll respond with people who know more than you and those that dispute Kingston A. George. Read my article with an open mind.



In his latest article in the January/February 2009 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, titled "Buzzing Bee Missile Mythology Flies Again," Kingston George admits that he has belatedly reviewed some of Jacobs' and Mansmann's letters. Even a cursory examination of the correspondence will reveal why George does not quote from it and attempts to rush past the subject as quickly and superficially as possible, given that the letters thoroughly demolish his own bogus claims about the Big Sur UFO Incident.


Deep Denial or Disinformation?



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman

Roswell, UFOs & Nukes

A UFO intercepting a nuclear missile under test from Vandenburg AF base in 1964 is discussed by Lt Robert Jacobs. The missile was not armed and was merely a dummy. Jacobs was assigned to the test as telescope site commander and claims that when viewing the film later it showed a UFO firing beams of light at the missile under test.





Great post on greer! I feel at the beginning he had good intentions, but now hes either a disinfo agent in my eyes or getting suckered by them at the least, to do their bidding unknowingly.

However, there is one claim of yours i must talk about- and thats the Robert Jacobs one.

Greer has not studied all the links carefully here.

Although the objects origin has never been solved- it has indeed been proven Robert Jacobs is telling the truth on the incident. Perhaps i can further explain why.


1. The Florence J Mansmann letter proves it.
www.csicop.org...

"Both Jacobs and Hastings mention SAC Major Florenz Mansmann Jr., who was the photographic support coordinator for the First Strategic Aerospace Division at Vandenberg AFB. I have reviewed post-retirement letters purported to be from Mansmann, and they indicate that he agrees, in general, with Jacobs’s conjectures. He passed away, according to Hastings, in 2003."

www.nicap.org...


2.The Air Force (at least initially, not sure about recent years) denied Jacobs even worked at the base.

Which is a HUGE red flag to deny his employment there.

Its not like he was employed so long ago, like the Roswell era, that the likelihood of a miskept record would have been likely.


"The Air Force denied everything. Was I in the Air Force? The Air Force denied it. Was I ever at Vandenburg? Well of course I couldn’t be because if I wasn’t in the Air Force how could I have been at Vandenburg? Did I put a tracking site up along the California coast? No, there was no tracking site in California. Which is a crock! The tracking site is still there right where I put it. And they use it to show you every time the space shuttle lands in California- that’s where you first see it from. And they are still photographing missiles from Vandenburg from that tracking site."

3. CIA/MIB Involvement.

Major Florence Mansmann in the letter did indeed confirm the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency, as Lt Jacobs did too, however, he never was able to expose the identities.
edit on 27-10-2017 by clt1994 because: context



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: clt1994


I said in the OP :



You can, of course, choose who to believe. But if aliens were really after nuclear weapons why bother taking this particular ‘dummy’ one out when over 2,000 nuclear weapons have been tested to date?


So if it was an ET intervention then why do they mess around with a dummy warhead and do nothing about other real ones? My point in the context of the OP was that Greer treats it all on face value as if it was ET. The evidence is far from solid for that.



Both Jacobs and Hastings mention SAC Major Florenz Mansmann Jr., who was the photographic support coordinator for the First Strategic Aerospace Division at Vandenberg AFB. I have reviewed post-retirement letters purported to be from Mansmann, and they indicate that he agrees, in general, with Jacobs’s conjectures.


Does one man's alleged review of letters 'purported' to be from Mansmann really prove Jacobs story?



The Air Force (at least initially, not sure about recent years) denied Jacobs even worked at the base.


What evidence of that assertion exists other than people saying that was the case?

Also the letter mentions this was part of a 'Star Wars' test. Back in 1964?

If we assume everything else is true about the reality of the 'object' then the answer is there in that letter.



But why should we trust one anecdotal source over another?

If only the film was available hey?


edit on 27/10/17 by mirageman because: corrections



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: clt1994


I said in the OP :



You can, of course, choose who to believe. But if aliens were really after nuclear weapons why bother taking this particular ‘dummy’ one out when over 2,000 nuclear weapons have been tested to date?


So if it was an ET intervention then why do they mess around with a dummy warhead and do nothing about other real ones? My point in the context of the OP was that Greer treats it all on face value as if it was ET. The evidence is far from solid for that.



Both Jacobs and Hastings mention SAC Major Florenz Mansmann Jr., who was the photographic support coordinator for the First Strategic Aerospace Division at Vandenberg AFB. I have reviewed post-retirement letters purported to be from Mansmann, and they indicate that he agrees, in general, with Jacobs’s conjectures.


Does one man's alleged review of letters 'purported' to be from Mansmann really prove Jacobs story?



The Air Force (at least initially, not sure about recent years) denied Jacobs even worked at the base.


What evidence of that assertion exists other than people saying that was the case?

Also the letter mentions this was part of a 'Star Wars' test. Back in 1964?

If we assume everything else is true about the reality of the 'object' then the answer is there in that letter.



But why should we trust one anecdotal source over another?

If only the film was available hey?



Again i can't speak on the origins of the UFO. Not gonna conclude on if its alien or not. Because regarding why it would screw with one missile as opposed to many, i can't tell you either. But chances are if it was extraterrestrial, it would have been to send a message, which would have also meant it obviously was ignored.

But to answer your question about why we should trust one anecdotal source over another?

We dont. We use both to add credence to what both are saying. These were high ranking military officers who have little reason to make up stories or put their societal image on the line.

I also dont know why you refer to the letter as "purportedly". It's either genuine or its not in your eyes. Although to deny that would be ludicrous in my opinion given the fact even the CSICOP link i presented clearly hasn't debunked it, but rather admitted it.

If only the film was available... Yes. That would have been helpful. Sadly Major Mansmann could only confirm the existance of the CIA agents who confiscated it, not the identities according to the letter.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Two things:


In 1997, Greer, along with other members of CSETI, including Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell, made a presentation at a background briefing for members of Congress.[17] In 1998, Greer gave up his career as an emergency room physician in favor of the Disclosure Project.[18][19]

In May 2001, Greer held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that featured 20 retired Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration and intelligence officers.[2][20][21][22][23][24] According to a 2002 report in the Oregon Daily Emerald, Greer has gathered 120 hours of testimony from civilians and various government and military officials, including astronaut Gordon Cooper and a brigadier general, on the topic of UFOs

en.wikipedia.org...

You don't trash such a career when you're in for the money. And the testimonies are somewhat tangible indeed. Or did they all conspire to make a buck, too? Where is your evidence for all that now?

Does Hynek and Project Blue Book ring a bell? That's a rather funny tale...


Hynek was an associate member of the Robertson Panel, which recommended that UFOs needed debunking. A few years later, however, Hynek's opinions about UFOs changed, and he thought they represented an unsolved mystery deserving scientific scrutiny. As the only scientist involved with US Government UFO studies from the beginning to the end, he could offer a unique perspective on Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book.

After what he described as a promising beginning with a potential for scientific research, Hynek grew increasingly disenchanted with Blue Book during his tenure with the project, leveling accusations of indifference, incompetence, and of shoddy research on the part of Air Force personnel. Hynek notes that during its existence, critics dubbed Blue Book "The Society for the Explanation of the Uninvestigated.

en.wikipedia.org...

You didn't really think this through, did you?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: clt1994





I also dont know why you refer to the letter as "purportedly". It's either genuine or its not in your eyes.


Because that's what it says in the CSICOP source you cited and have even posted it in your own response.


...Both Jacobs and Hastings mention SAC Major Florenz Mansmann Jr., who was the photographic support coordinator for the First Strategic Aerospace Division at Vandenberg AFB. I have reviewed post-retirement letters purported to be from Mansmann, and they indicate that he agrees, in general, with Jacobs’s conjectures.


www.csicop.org...



But without the film and further information it remains an unresolved UFO story.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




You don't trash such a career when you're in for the money.....


What evidence can you provide to prove that's the case?
People change careers all the time. Maybe he found he could make more money in his new career projecting disclosures.




You didn't really think this through, did you?


Sorry what exactly was your point about Hynek?

I've already posted what he says in the movie here. That's supported by the original video of Hynek saying it.


“They were told not to excite the public. Don’t rock the boat”


Did you actually read the thread?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

A friend of mine is emergency room physician as well. Rough job but a good kickstarter for a fine career, you don't throw all this away to sell some books eventually. How rich is he then, luxury yachts in Monaco maybe?
Thing is, you told us that he has a lust for cash and I'm unable to see it - care to provide some evidence?



Sorry what exactly was your point about Hynek?


Corroboration of stories via another gubbermint program, that scrutinized the UFO phenomena. Greers collection of testemony just got a tad more interesting with this. You might say that they're all just liars in a big conspiracy to sell snake oil, but who on Ceres cares when there's nothing to support your case?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




A friend of mine is emergency room physician as well. Rough job but a good kickstarter for a fine career, you don't throw all this away to sell some books


What does that prove in relation to whether aliens are visiting Earth and there is a grand conspiracy to cover both that fact and the holding back of free energy technologies?




......you told us that he has a lust for cash and I'm unable to see it - care to provide some evidence?


No.I said in the second line of the OP.



...There are numerous posts in the forums about his outlandish false claims, his lust for cash, uncontrolled ego and Messiah complex.


This thread isn't really about Greer making money it's about the content of the 'Unacknowledged' movie and the reliability of its claims.




....Corroboration of stories via another gubbermint program, that scrutinized the UFO phenomena. Greers collection of testemony[sic] just got a tad more interesting with this.


So what did I say that was wrong about Hynek and the Robertson panel?

You seem to have decided what this thread is all about but don't seem to have paid attention to the actual content of it?

You didn't really read it through did you?



edit on 28/10/17 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: clt1994





I also dont know why you refer to the letter as "purportedly". It's either genuine or its not in your eyes.


Because that's what it says in the CSICOP source you cited and have even posted it in your own response.

But without the film and further information it remains an unresolved UFO story.


...Both Jacobs and Hastings mention SAC Major Florenz Mansmann Jr., who was the photographic support coordinator for the First Strategic Aerospace Division at Vandenberg AFB. I have reviewed post-retirement letters purported to be from Mansmann, and they indicate that he agrees, in general, with Jacobs’s conjectures.


www.csicop.org...






Fair enough, and yes the film along with further study is needed... Sadly the chances of that happening are probably zero.
edit on 28-10-2017 by clt1994 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2017 by clt1994 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: clt1994


I said in the OP :



You can, of course, choose who to believe. But if aliens were really after nuclear weapons why bother taking this particular ‘dummy’ one out when over 2,000 nuclear weapons have been tested to date?


So if it was an ET intervention then why do they mess around with a dummy warhead and do nothing about other real ones? My point in the context of the OP was that Greer treats it all on face value as if it was ET. The evidence is far from solid for that.



Both Jacobs and Hastings mention SAC Major Florenz Mansmann Jr., who was the photographic support coordinator for the First Strategic Aerospace Division at Vandenberg AFB. I have reviewed post-retirement letters purported to be from Mansmann, and they indicate that he agrees, in general, with Jacobs’s conjectures.


Does one man's alleged review of letters 'purported' to be from Mansmann really prove Jacobs story?



The Air Force (at least initially, not sure about recent years) denied Jacobs even worked at the base.


What evidence of that assertion exists other than people saying that was the case?

Also the letter mentions this was part of a 'Star Wars' test. Back in 1964?

If we assume everything else is true about the reality of the 'object' then the answer is there in that letter.



But why should we trust one anecdotal source over another?

If only the film was available hey?



The question of why would they take out a dummy warhead as opposed to an armed one is simple. Since the device that was messed with was a missile. (missiles are used to make war with). War is inevitably bad for everyone. And the pattern with these "interference's" appears to be sending a message that war making things are naughty and bad so don't do it.

It fits the same pattern as it always has.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join