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.

 

CNN mentions PJ's UFO special upset a lot of people

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
As I mentioned, I've already laid out my Case for Roswell...(interesting title looking back, hehe...)

However, if you seriously doubt my charges against PJ, watch the special for yourself, specifically the Roswell segment. See if my charges that he stated the credentials of Skeptics, while ignoring those of UFOlogists sticks. Does he once mention that Stan is a PHD Nuclear Physicist and formerly worked on secret government projects? Does he mention Randle was a former USAF Captain? Does he state that the assertion of Roswell as a "myth" is "this reporter's opinion"? No, he states it as if it were fact.

The case of shoddy journalism and lost integrity is open and shut.




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Why don't you just go ahead and lay out what you've got to say?

Considering the gleemings of your personal history, I would really like to hear your views/viewpoint.

Irregardless of our varying viewpoints, we are all essentially chums.

So crank it up big guy!



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
"False witnesses are a dime a dozen in most cases."==Gaz (commentary, Roswell part II)

There are times when we truely see eye to eye.

"Does he once mention that Stan is a PHD Nuclear Physicist" ==Gaz

I would like to see a reference for that. (Other than testimony).

Does he state that the assertion of Roswell as a "myth" is "this reporter's opinion"? ==Gaz

Or maybe his staff noticed that Roswell matches the general characteristics of a "myth"
in Encyclopædia Britannica - myth
A symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that
is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or
objects (temples, icons). Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings involved in extraordinary events.
Myths are not presented as fictitious or untrue.
The most obvious function of myths is the explanation of facts, whether natural or cultural.

A curio, also from Britannica.

Roswell Incident

U.S. Air Force report that proves the supposed U.F.O. landing in New Mexico was actually a crashed weather balloon.
Provides detailed proof to end the controversy about an alleged cover-up.

Assuming PJ's staff had only two possible sources to reference for their story, and they were directed to use a credible
source, which would they logically choose, ATS or Britannica ?

The defense rests and stands down.

(Note for Hal and golemina - not ignoring you, just like to finish what I started.)



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   


"False witnesses are a dime a dozen in most cases."==Gaz (commentary, Roswell part II)

There are times when we truely see eye to eye.


I've made no secret that some people tried to make a buck off Roswell, and fabricated stories. These same people are the ones who's stories don't corraborate with other independent multiple witness testimony, and are therefore unreliable.



"Does he once mention that Stan is a PHD Nuclear Physicist" ==Gaz

I would like to see a reference for that. (Other than testimony).


A reference for his credentials, or a reference that the special makes no mention of them. Both, are a matter of record. Stan's credentials in Acadamia, and the no mention of them, in the special itself.



Does he state that the assertion of Roswell as a "myth" is "this reporter's opinion"? ==Gaz

Or maybe his staff noticed that Roswell matches the general characteristics of a "myth"
in Encyclopædia Britannica - myth
A symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that
is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or
objects (temples, icons). Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings involved in extraordinary events.
Myths are not presented as fictitious or untrue.
The most obvious function of myths is the explanation of facts, whether natural or cultural.


So, would Jennings go on the air and report about the "myth" of Jesus? I hardly think so. I also fail to see the religious beliefs connected with the Roswell case, as given by the definition. The narrative of Roswell is not symbolic, not of unknown origin (i.e. named witnesses), etc. Therefore, it does NOT match the general characteristics...unless you use a shoehorn of course....



A curio, also from Britannica.

Roswell Incident

U.S. Air Force report that proves the supposed U.F.O. landing in New Mexico was actually a crashed weather balloon.
Provides detailed proof to end the controversy about an alleged cover-up.

Assuming PJ's staff had only two possible sources to reference for their story, and they were directed to use a credible
source, which would they logically choose, ATS or Britannica ?


When the official line differs from their own evidence (i.e. the USAF's own files and reports detail a coverup. The coverup is a FACT, the thing being covered up, THAT is the point of contention.), a GOOD journalist will look at the facts, or at least report his findings as his opinion, rather than state a conclusion on a controversial topic as "it's a myth" to a national audience. Nor will a GOOD journalist gloss over one side's credentials, especially when they eclipse the credentials of their side's witnesses.

The charge of shoddy journalism stands....



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Sorry Gaz, but Stanton Friedman doesn't have a PHD.


From Friedman's Bio

Stanton T. Friedman received BSc and MSc degrees in physics from the University of Chicago in 1955 and 1956.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Oh man, I can't believe I was thinking of Bruce on that one, hehe...


Thanks for the clarification on Stan... I knew he was a nuclear physicist, but it was Macabee I was thinking of for the PHD.

Still, we're talking a BSc, MSc degree, 14 years as a nuclear physicist with the likes of GE, GM, Westinghouse, McDonnell Douglas, etc. Literally, the man is a rocket scientist... (none of which was mentioned by Jennings)

Compared to Korff, who is an independent research, former computer programmer.

Hmm...???



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
"Sorry Gaz, but Stanton Friedman doesn't have a PHD. " = lost shaman

And its not in Nuclear Physics either. Outstanding again, lost. As I have done
already with Hal, one of my remaining two votes this month is now in your honor.

I was wondering who would pick up on that clue. If the forum had ended with
your post, I think it would have been apparent to casual readers just what a
"reasonable doubt" really means. But since Gaz now wants to change his
name specific charge, it is only fair to suggest that we have had a mis-trial in
favor of my client. Re-wording the charges is a bit too late. The defense
rested. When the prosecution levies a charge that is factually shown to be incorrect,
case dismissed, Jury dismissed, and PJ cant be tried twice for the same offense (no matter how
it is reworded).

I thank you folks one and all for the level of responses I have seen in here. And I bow to my honorable
court opponent, Gaz, for whom it appears my last vote unfortunatly is not allowed to be sent your way.

(Note for Gaz, Peter Jennings was not found guilty since the case was dismissed. He is now free
to rest in peace. Get over it.)



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

Still, we're talking a BSc, MSc degree, 14 years as a nuclear physicist with the likes of GE, GM, Westinghouse, McDonnell Douglas, etc. Literally, the man is a rocket scientist... (none of which was mentioned by Jennings)



Right , I think Friedman's credentials speak for themselves!

And I totally agree that Peter Jennings didn't mention his credentials! ( I believe he was referred to as a "Roswell Promoter." But hey, what do you expect from the mainstream Media?)

Edit: And you didn't mention that in '69(? Sorry its to late for me to dig up the date sorry!) he was the only person without a PHD that testified before Congress , about UFOs.

nightwing ,

I don't think you can declare a mistrial so quickly , if you want to be technical I'd say this is pretrial discovery!




[edit on 21-8-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   


But since Gaz now wants to change his
name specific charge, it is only fair to suggest that we have had a mis-trial in
favor of my client. Re-wording the charges is a bit too late. The defense
rested. When the prosecution levies a charge that is factually shown to be incorrect,
case dismissed, Jury dismissed, and PJ cant be tried twice for the same offense (no matter how
it is reworded).


Doesn't change anything. I accused Jennings of not stating Stan's (or other UFOlogists on the show) credentials. That still occurred. OJ got off too, but that doesn't change what happened...
The mentioning of Stan's specific credentials was off the top of my head, there was no actual trial here... The mistake of ONE of Stan's credentials in this off the cuff remark (i.e. he is STILL a degreed Nuclear Physicist, who worked for top defense contractors, as I stated), hardly nullifies the accusation.

Do this nightwing.

Watch the special, or get a transcript.

Then answer me one question honestly. No lawyer-speak, no bull#.

Q: Did Peter Jennings fail to mention Stan Friedman's credentials during the show?

It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a verifiable fact. If you do not have access to the show, reply as such, and sometime during my busy week, I'll try and pop in the tape, and type up a transcript.

You can dance around it all you want, but the fact remains. Jennings did NOT mention his credentials, and in not doing so, he is guilty of sleazy journalism. He put forth his OPINION as a stated fact, and did so to millions.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Gazrok ,

Your exactly right OPINION was expressed as fact !

Guilty , Guilty , Guilty !


Edit:

Let me add some anecdotal evidence here , as a child I lived on farmland in North Texas (literally downwind of New Mexico), and as a child we found weather balloons in our fields. So I can not personally believe for one second that grown men could not tell the difference between Alien Craft and weather balloons! I knew what they were and I was 5- 6 years old!( Well I knew they were something at that time , it was my dad that told me they were weather balloons)

One or two more turned up when I was 8-9 years old . I knew what they were! The material the balloons are made of degrades rapidly in sunlight. Sci-fi chnl found one on location at Roswell , if you saw that special that's exactly what a weather balloon looks like in a field!

I have no reason to think that a MOGUL train would not be made of the same latex like material, its rapid degradation in sunlight would make it ideal for a top secret balloon project because it is guaranteed to breakdown and fall back to Earth on American soil.

Most of them have return addresses so you can send them to the people who launched them.




[edit on 21-8-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Nightwing may I recommend "above top secret" by Timothy Good for an overview on this facinating subject. I'd be interested to hear what you think after finishing it.

IMO Timothy Good should present this book as a proposed tv series, I think it would be well recieved and go down very well especially on stations such as channel 4. (uk)

We are being visited & are interacting with extra terrestrial beings. Why is this such a problem? If ANYBODY researched the subject in depth then surely it's plane to see from the remarks of world leaders, top military officials, trained observers, military documents, radar , I could go on that we are being visited plane and simple.

There is much of the subject that is nonsense but the wheat is soon seperated from the chaff with a bit of in depth research.

I really get amazed when sceptics and debunkers smugly sit there and ignore basic facts and evidence. I can't help but notice a "look how clever I am" attitude. Go and look at your average debunker, i'd be bitter also.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
When the prosecution levies a charge that is factually shown to be incorrect,
case dismissed, Jury dismissed, and PJ cant be tried twice for the same offense (no matter how it is reworded).


So you’re willing to let him off on a technicality. Does that make him any less guilty? I think not.

But that's all right, I know it was a biased report, and over time will have little impact on anything. But if done properly, as Stan would say, it would be the story of the millennium.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
"and so the conversation turned......"

From the prosecution, post trial

"Jennings did NOT mention his credentials, and in not doing so, he is guilty " == Gaz

Representing the Jury, and do I hear an echo ?

"Guilty , Guilty , Guilty ! " == lost

Here comes the judge

"So you’re willing to let him off on a technicality. Does that make him any less guilty? I think not.
But that's all right, I know it was a biased report" == Hal

Its not so much a technicality but a protection in our legal system. One recent trial I mentioned
went this way (mis-trial).

When facing a Kangaroo Court, what few options you can grasp are ALL you got to work with.
Was his report biased ? Certainly not more than this court was.

"He put forth his OPINION as a stated fact" == Gaz

Let the first person on ATS who is without this sin cast the first stone.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Peter Jennings did not do an investigative report , even though that is what it was touted as. He regurgitated the Air Forces version of the "Truth".

He didn't bother with Friedman's credentials.

No need for mock Trials !

In my eyes it was no less than a subtle attack against Ufology!

Calling Ufologists " Promoters" !

Repeatedly using the term mythology!

I was not scared out of my mind by a myth in '02 !

I was offended by the way he portrayed people who report things of a Ufological nature!



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
When facing a Kangaroo Court, what few options you can grasp are ALL you got to work with. Was his report biased ? Certainly not more than this court was.


So your saying this court was biased? Or are we just informed? Granted you will not find an unbiased jury here at ATS. But lets say a jury was pulled from the general public. Most people would be skeptical of the subject, therefore reasonable doubt would render a favorable verdict for PJ. But if you take people, say from ATS that have researched the subject, and are more qualified to make a judgement, you will get the opposite result, which is what happened.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   


"He put forth his OPINION as a stated fact" == Gaz

Let the first person on ATS who is without this sin cast the first stone.


There's a difference between a forum designed for stating opinions, and Professional Journalism and a Professional Journalist doing this nationally in front of millions. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Also, most members do try and make it clear they are stating an opinion. If you're ok with such journalistic behavior, then that is strictly your conviction. Do you think such shoddy journalistic practices are restricted to "out there" subjects like UFOs? Nope. Just remember back to the footage of the Saddam statue coming down, and the shoddy journalism used there to magnify the appearance of the crowd's numbers, etc. It's not even deplorable, it's downright scary....



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
"Thats quite the veer" == golemina

If you liked that one, you are gonna luv this one.

"Divide the populace into two camps such that all issues become obscured in one against the other. "

but,

"...without the distraction of polarized political banter"

Sounds like a good experiment. But far safer with folks who do not "lose it".
It would appear that the phenomena is natural and powered by "biased-belief".

"So your saying this court was biased?" == Hal

I didnt have to, I merely quote Judge, Jury, and the Prosecution (above post).

"lets say a jury was pulled from the general public. Most people would be skeptical of the subject, therefore reasonable doubt would render a favorable verdict for PJ."

Exactly.

"But if you take people, say from ATS that have researched the subject, and are more qualified to make a judgement, you will get the opposite result, which is what happened." == Hal

NOT exactly. Hal, you and Gazrok have researched the subject. I do believe you and he would be more
qualified but would still have to swear to make your judgement from only what is introduced in court. But if you honestly
believe as a result of the research, then he is guilty until proven innocient.
lost shaman has had an experiance that is the source of his belief, but same result, guilty until proven innocient.
The rest of ATS includes a sum of folks who might say the Royals are Reptilians, or some such, and that -oh yeah-
he is guilty until proven innocient.
The AVERAGE is not more qualified to make a judgement, but we do get the opposite result. Which is a Kangaroo Court.

Here is an example of what I mean. Situation, Jury selection. The judge advises the Jury pool that the trial will involve a defendant
who is charged with possession and sale of marijuana. The first question to the Jury pool is to the effect of whether or not those present
have a personal issue with the charges as described. First person with raised hand - called on- states :
Oh yes. I dont believe it is a crime to have it or use it or sale it so the defendant aint guilty of nothin.
That type of Jury, Judge, etc is the opposite of a Kangaroo court. The scales of justice require constant balance.
If either side drops, no matter the reason, the Justice system is broken. Does it happen? A lot.
Do we set it up to be broken ? I do not believe it is intentional but you are arguing that we do so in this case.

Slight change of discussion

"Nightwing may I recommend "above top secret" by Timothy Good " == thepostman

Thats one I have not read but wont get to it for awhile. The next on my list is "American Soldier" by Tommy Franks.
I have skimmed it but I need to do a detailed read.

"We are being visited & are interacting with extra terrestrial beings. Why is this such a problem?" == thepostman

Because I believe you could make that a sworn affidavit honestly, I could counter you with one, also honestly,
and as Gazrok said in this circumstance on his last post of page 1 above, we would therefore need other evidence
than our sworn and conflicting oral evidence. The snake swallowing its own tail kinda thing.

"I can't help but notice a "look how clever I am" attitude." == thepostman

If I come across that way I apologize. Look, I play tennis. I am not a beginner, and I am not an
expert. But I really enjoy the long volleys, so I dont concentrate on a slam serve. I do like to
think I have a mean "backhand". That help any?



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
nightwing,

Jennings regurgitated the Air Forces "truth" ( I was hoping you would step in to that trap)

But you side stepped that one.

Tonight I saw the new episode of UFO Files on History Channel , and saw a clip of Truman I had never seen before. He said "The UFO subject was discussed at every conference we had with the Military."

Let me ask you this , if Roswell didn't happen just as Jennings "Reports" , what was being discussed "at every conference (the White House/Truman) had with the Military."? The Kennith Arnold sighing? I think not!

I also think its about time the public was told the truth ! Or (dare I say), Scientists' be told the truth!

And at least the History Channel had the sense to list Stanton Friedman's credentials as , " Nuclear Physicist/ Lecturer", as opposed to Jennings special calling him a "Roswell Promoter".

You know the debate has always been about one thing, is there or is there not, enough evidence to justify scientific investigation?

While the lay person may not even understand that question, everyone of us who does understand it knows what the answer to that question is !

Everyone who's ever laughed at the thought of "Swap Gas" knows Blue Book was going above and beyond the call of duty to explain every sighting. And yet Blue Book failed to explain 21% of them!?

The " Scientific Report " that ended Blue Book Failed to explain 30% of the reports it investigated !

The Condon Report's percentage of "Unknowns" was 30 %, 9% higher than Blue Book's 21% "Unknowns".

Yes it true I've had an experience with something I know was real , isn't it convenent that the facts always seem to be in my favor? Why is that ?

If everyone was just drunk or crazy or seeing Iridium Flares , then Ufology should be as dead as nails , but it isn't its growing everyday!

Someday people will laugh at us knowing that we even are having this discussion , because they will see Visitation as something that should have been obvious!



[edit on 23-8-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Truman in need of a diversion from crisis after crisis so he decides
to make UFO's the topic of all his meetings with the military? Tell me where he had
the time.


Extracted events from:
www.whitehouse.gov...

On April 12, 1945, he became President after Roosevelt passed away.
He served in France during World War I as a captain in the Field Artillery.
Elected a judge of the Jackson County Court in 1922.
During World War II he headed the Senate war investigating committee, checking into waste and corruption, some say saving perhaps as much as 15 billion
Truman made some of the most crucial decisions in history. Truman, after consultations with his advisers, ordered atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In June 1945 Truman witnessed the signing of the charter of the United Nations.
Then, he instituted many social programs known as the Fair Deal.
Campaigned and elected as president in his own right in 1948.
In 1947 as the Soviet Union pressured Turkey and threatened to take over Greece, he asked Congress to aid the two countries, which generated
the program that bears his name. The Truman Doctrine.
Likewise The Marshall Plan, named for his Secretary of State, began economic recovery in war-torn Europe.
When the Russians blockaded Berlin in 1948, Truman created a massive airlift to supply Berlin until the
Russians backed down. Meanwhile, he negotiated a military alliance to protect Western nations.
That was NATO in 1949.
In June 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea.
Truman managed to keep the war a limited one, and did not run for a second term in 1952.

"Let me ask you this , if Roswell didn't happen just as Jennings "Reports" , what was being discussed
"at every conference (the White House/Truman) had with the Military."? The Kennith Arnold sighing? I think not! == lost

We cound not agree more on that one.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Nightwing,

You are simply in denial!

Don't worry though you are not alone!

But I , my friend , don't have the luxury of denial , I have to accept reality on this subject. I wish everyone could see what I saw , but you can't. However , evidence that some UFOs are ETV's is overwhelming! You can't deny that the evidence exists!

Evidence that directly contradicts the Null Hypothesis that says ETV's are not Visiting the Earth!

Edit:


"Let me ask you this , if Roswell didn't happen just as Jennings "Reports" , what was being discussed
"at every conference (the White House/Truman) had with the Military."? The Kennith Arnold sighing? I think not! == lost_shaman ( not to be confused with the member lost)

We could not agree more on that one.== nightwing


So you agree that Truman and his people would lie to keep the public and media from the truth , but you don't think they would keep the truth about UFOs secret. Or in this case tell us the truth.

So what is it, they can't lie to us or tell the truth now?

Remember Occam's razor, it advises not to add unnecessary causes to explain observations!



[edit on 23-8-2005 by lost_shaman]







 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join