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.

 

Inside the ABC News UFO Documentary Hoax

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I'm sure he had hope...many of us did. Then again, back in early February, I pretty much gave you a summary of how it would go... It almost went exactly to formula, and was kind of eerie actually,
I didn't see the Roswell "myth" label coming though....was kind of blind-sided by THAT one...

I think that's one of the reasons the special upset me so...having put quite a bit of effort into showing how and why things happened the way they did then.

In essence, it didn't show us anything new, but the end result is a public dismissal of perhaps the most important case in all of UFOlogy. In 15 minutes, he managed to convince the majority of lay people out there watching, that Roswell is just a myth...despite the fact that as a case, the Roswell incident has....government acknowledgement of a crash, PROOF of a government coverup (even admitted), good evidence showing the AF explanation is contrary to the facts, a US Army press announcement admitting to the capture of a flying disc, newspaper headlines, numerous witnesses from enlisted men, sergeants, captains, generals, etc. and an impressive paper trail of documents.




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Well I certainly respect your point of view Gazrok.. and I remember reading that post about the show you had.. and your right you pretty much laid out what was gonna happen. The thing is there is a differance between hope and reality. Dr Greer is sitting on memo stating apparently that the media has been controlled by the CIA since 91(?) concerning this subject at least... I was peeved by the show but I wasnt shocked by the way it went...The hope is a email campaign might do some good but look the reality is nothing will change.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Yes, but how authentic is the memo...???
That's of course what the skeptics will ask.

To be honest, the CIA would be pretty lax at their job if they DIDN'T have someone at each major media outlet. That's right, if you think about it from their perspective, seems like a given. So I have no doubt this is the case....

However, having someone there, and controlling content is a completely different ballgame. A bargaining chip would have to be used, and one more than just yanking their FCC license...as such things are apt to go VERY public. Having such a bargaining chip on each outlet seems improbable at BEST.

While I admire Greer's efforts, he too (like all of us) has made some mistakes in the evidence he presents...(look no further than their endorsement of Meier).



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Do you know what?

I think the only way the general public will actually believe all the proof we have is if some kind of Independence Day invasion occurs.

I don't want to appear to be negative but it seems that there is a hard core of believers all around the world with PROOF and just nobody seems to want to listen so maybe a big smack in the face situation like this is what it actually needs to solve the problem.

Anybody know how we can get in touch with the ET's and ask them to just land once maybe, do something that the world can see and then they can carry out with what they are doing now? (being seen, tracked, crashing etc.)



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call the program a "farce". It was only a farce to the initiated. To the uninitiated it served a purpose. You know, my family members get a chuckle out of my interest in UFOs and aliens, and although they say they believe in UFOs and aliens, they're way too insecure to ever discuss the subject with anyone other than myself for fear of being ridiculed and laughed at. They could never begin to understand the magnitude of what is happening and it's possible effects on their own future as well as the future of all mankind. There's a wall in their minds that even the most educated on the subject could never tear down and get past. It's like their brains go to sleep once you reach a certain point in the discussion. I would assume that this is not an uncommon occurance.

Now the reason I bring this up is because we always hear about polls being taken by whomever, and that those polls say that 65% (guesstimate) of American citizens believe in UFOs and the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. But a lot of that 65% are just like the members of my family, they say they believe, but since it's been covered up and no government- substantiated evidence exists, it must be in their best interests and they don't really need to know. They've been lulled to sleep so to speak.

So you've got 35% that don't believe at all, 45% (guesstimate) of the previously stated 65%, that believe but don't really care. That leaves 20% of the populous as the "initiated". We still got a long way to go folks. The situation with the government cover-up is what it is. Most of the people that started it are probably dead by now and the cover-up is such a juggernaut and is so deeply rooted that it's impossible for disclosure to happen in giant leaps. The public is simply not ready, even if they say they are. We blame politicians for lying to us about UFOs, but I guarantee you that 99.99999% of politicians couldn't do squat about it even if they wanted to. Disclosure is going to be an evolutionary event, and the process must be respected. If aliens are really malevolent in nature, then I'm not really sure I even want to know the truth, because really, what could I hope to do about it if my own government can't do anything about it? It's way beyond our control now, and bitching and whining just makes the government have less confidence in the public's ability to handle the truth.

Peace


[edit on 29-3-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The good news is...they must be doing SOMETHING about it....as we haven't been invaded yet...


Whether it's the right thing, or even if that "thing" was doing nothing at all, at least the desired result was achieved... So I suppose that's at least a marginal success...No?



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
. If aliens are really malevolent in nature, then I'm not really sure I even want to know the truth, because really, what could I hope to do about it if my own government can't do anything about it? It's way beyond our control now, and bitching and whining just makes the government have less confidence in the public's ability to handle the truth.


[edit on 29-3-2005 by Dr Love]


I think the fear of malevolent aleins is just illogical. If the aliens wanted to harm us, with there superior tech. they probiblly could do it without any trouble, at anytime. Also, what could possibly be there reason for wanting to harm us?(we are doing a preaty good job on our own) That would be like taking a flight all the way to China, just to shoot a couple of dogs. As far as the theory they want out planet, with the hundreds of billions of galaxys, and a seemingly infinate number of stars, planets etc. I doubt that the universe is running out of real estate. Also, the hybrid program dosen't really make any sense to me either, if they are masters of manipulating DNA, why do they need ours?

The only reason that I can think, they are here is, they have alwias been here, and they are basicially watchers. Thats why they haven't come down and made a official apperance yet.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Then why buzz our defense installations?
Why disable nuclear weapons at such installations?
Why cause the death of more than a few pilots?
Why abduct citizens against their will and experiment on them?
Why stay secretive?
Why invade sovereign airspace?

I agree it doesn't look like conquest is their goal, but that's a far cry from saying they aren't hostile to some degree. Do the above sound like the actions of those with our best interests at heart? I didn't think so...



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53
Anybody know how we can get in touch with the ET's and ask them to just land once maybe, do something that the world can see and then they can carry out with what they are doing now? (being seen, tracked, crashing etc.)


Um, you just did. If ET is within range, that alone would dictate the possession of technology sufficiently advanced to view the Internet as 'signal leakage' from our planet.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Then why buzz our defense installations?
Why disable nuclear weapons at such installations?
Why cause the death of more than a few pilots?
Why abduct citizens against their will and experiment on them?
Why stay secretive?
Why invade sovereign airspace?

I agree it doesn't look like conquest is their goal, but that's a far cry from saying they aren't hostile to some degree. Do the above sound like the actions of those with our best interests at heart? I didn't think so...


1. I think disarming our nukes and all nukes is in our best interest
2. I doubt that they are intentionally killing off our piolts
3. When we abduct Animals in the wild to study them, are we doing it cause we want to harm them?
4. Your guess is as good as mine
5. What makes it OUR air space? They were probiblly in it way before us anyways.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   


1. I think disarming our nukes and all nukes is in our best interest


Still, not a decision for THEM to make, nor is such a thing a "friendly" act.



2. I doubt that they are intentionally killing off our piolts


Numerous cases show otherwise...as the reports include the use of beam weapons on such fighters.



3. When we abduct Animals in the wild to study them, are we doing it cause we want to harm them?


So then you're suggesting that these beings view sentient life no differently than we view animals? That certainly doesn't point to a benevolent goal either...
It'd be pretty obvious, upon descending to Earth from space, that crops don't grow "naturally" in squares, and that some sentience was behind it....




4. Your guess is as good as mine


And since they aren't telling, we need to prepare for any of the various reasons.



5. What makes it OUR air space? They were probiblly in it way before us anyways.


I don't see evidence of THEM establishing the culture, growing the crops, bleeding in wars to protect it, etc. so yes, that is what makes it OUR airspace...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wgatenson

3. When we abduct Animals in the wild to study them, are we doing it cause we want to harm them?



Here's the one I have a problem with. When we "abduct" animals in the wild to study them, we usually anesthetize them. Many accounts of supposed alien abductions involve very painful experiments done without anesthesia. So, in my mind, we are less to aliens than animals are to us.

Peace



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I was thinking of starting a new thread on whether they are freindly or not. But I imagine it's been done to death.

But my take on it is that we as humans apply our own preconceptions to try to guess at alien intentions. If you think about it, we have no way to know how they think. I think it's better to be safe than sorry, and be defensive. But I don't think we should not fire until fired upon. I have heard of attempts to shoot them down, and I think this could be dangerous, and start a war or something. I believe it was Corso who said we are already at war with them. This is why we need to know what the government knows.

BTW, Gazrock can you tell me which incidents your refering to on UFO shooting at pilots? Have not heard of any, except one incident where they shot down an Atlas test warhead. Thanks.

[edit on 3/30/2005 by rwatkins]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams

Jenning's report -- though unfair when it came to roswell -- was pretty balanced, overall. The people who are bitching about it cannot comprehend that a few "anecdotal" pilots are far better evidence than even the longest of speeches from guys running self-described UFO groups. Seriously... Are you guys stupid? Jenning's gave the UFO issue a sense of respectability by even mentioning it. I hate to break it to you... but people who have been abducted are usually treated as freaks and nut jobs. It REALLY HURTS abductees when ufo-hobbyists send bizarre emails to a reporter that bitch about how their particular version of events wasn't covered by his special...


With all due respect, as far as being upset about certain thing's being left out of the special, I think Dr. Greer's situation is a bit different.

I find it very curious that they left him and his high-level government and military insider whistle-blowers out of the special. Was that not the kind of evidence the Jennings special wanted?

The fact that the Disclosure Project got shafted does all but convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that ABC had a special agenda here to NOT take it all the way by at least acknowledging all good evidence that was made available to them. Bad, BAD journalism on their part.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   


BTW, Gazrock can you tell me which incidents your refering to on UFO shooting at pilots? Have not heard of any, except one incident where they shot down an Atlas test warhead. Thanks.


Sure, np. Can't find a particular one I'm looking for (it's mentioned in Randle's "UFO Casebook"), but I'll look it up when I get home....

Here's some others though....

The closest any airman to the mystery discs was on Jan. 7th, 1948, when one was sighted over Fort Knox, Kentucky the dispatch said. Four fighterplanes were sent aloft to intercept it, but only Capt. Thomas F. Mantell was able to get close.
"I'm closing in to take a good look," the newspaper quoted him as reporting by radio. "It looks metallic and of tremendous size. It's going up now as fast as I am. That's 350 miles an hour. I'm going up after it. At 20,000 ft., if I'm no closer I'll abandon chase."
Mantell's plane crashed a few minutes later and he was killed.


"In one amazing case in 1953, a F-89 interceptor was scrambled at Kinross AFB to investigate a UFO. The UFO followed the jet over Lake Superior. Then the ground radar control watched amazed as the UFO merged with the F-89 on the radar scope! The jet interceptor and the UFO were locked together. The combined blip then moved off the scope, but no trace was ever found of the two pilots, the jet, or the UFO.”


“Another incident involved an Air Force C-118 transport plane which was hit by some object in the air. The plane crashed, killing the pilot and the three man crew. Prior to the crash, witnesses had seen two UFOs following the aircraft and other people had noted UFOs in the area. Some of the reports were confirmed by Fred Emard, Chief of Police at Orting, Washington”


"In another case, Col. Lee Merkel crashed and was killed just after reporting a UFO.”

Just for a few examples...


EDIT: found it, the Kinross incident mentioned above. (there are others, but thought these would do....)

[edit on 30-3-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Sorry for being rude the other night. I was just frustrated because I thought that Jennings made an honest attempt and that if we bombard him with emotional complaints that it will scare journalists away from the subject in the future. My perspective is this: Jennings could have slammed the entire field but didn't. He left the main questions open. In our current environment, that is tantamount to getting tacit approval.

And, like I've said before, the Roswell section was very unfair. People have a legitimate right to gripe about that. Bashing Jennings because he didn't 'disclose' what many of us think of as the full truth is unfair, however, and only likely to hurt UFOlogy by making us sound like zealots.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Here's the one I have a problem with. When we "abduct" animals in the wild to study them, we usually anesthetize them.


Unfortunately that's not always the case. There have been reports of animals being mistreated beyond belief. I've read of an instance in which mice were put on a burner so to speak to see how long they could jump. I doubt that little experiment would work too well if they were under an anesthetic. Just one example..and there are many, many more.

Sorry I'm a bit off topic.
I have no idea what the alien's intentions may be.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   


Bashing Jennings because he didn't 'disclose' what many of us think of as the full truth is unfair, however, and only likely to hurt UFOlogy by making us sound like zealots.


Certainly can't bash Jennings for this. I doubt he "knows" anything to disclose. After all, his lack of knowledge in the area shows through quite clearly.

But he should be bashed for simple inaccurate (and thus irresponsible) journalism, for not acknowledging the credentials of BOTH sides (i.e. such as ignoring those of Friedman), and other instances, such as trying to use the USAF Roswell Case Closed report, without even acknowledging the attempt at explaining bodies, which was indeed, the PRIMARY focus of that USAF report.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin

Unfortunately that's not always the case. There have been reports of animals being mistreated beyond belief. I've read of an instance in which mice were put on a burner so to speak to see how long they could jump. I doubt that little experiment would work too well if they were under an anesthetic. Just one example..and there are many, many more.

Sorry I'm a bit off topic.
I have no idea what the alien's intentions may be.


I really meant professionally/scientifically abducted and studied. As far as the mice go, at least they're not immobilized and are able to jump off the burner. In most alien abduction cases I've heard about, the abductee is not allowed to just get up and walk away. But without firsthand knowledge, other people's accounts are all I have to go by.

I hear you though.

Peace



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

Certainly can't bash Jennings for this. I doubt he "knows" anything to disclose. After all, his lack of knowledge in the area shows through quite clearly.



I bet he personally knows more than we think, but he knows enough to keep his mouth shut. He knows where his bread is buttered. I'm sure he, Brokaw, Rather, Koppel, Cronkite, etc. all know exactly what's going on. As far as CBS goes, I'm sure 60 Minutes has some great stuff archived away.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join