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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
What Joe Knows


Originally posted by Hal9000


Perhaps the government staged all of this as part of a foundation for the broad, sweeping mole-hunts that took place after WWII -- hunts which bagged a lot of moles.

That is an interesting theory, but if your referring to McCarthyism, most of that took place later in the 50's.

No, I'm not referring to McCarthyism, although it is likely that the discovery of hundreds of Soviet moles in sensitive U.S. government positions after the war contributed to McCarthyism and what is falsely labeled as “paranoia” about Soviet spies.

It's not paranoia when hundreds of them are in sensitive positions. It is also highly doubtful that the U.S. government uncovered all of them.

With so much classified information flowing to the Kremlin, it was vital for U.S. counterintelligence officers to track down and plug the leaks.

“Plugging leaks”, however, doesn't always mean arresting the spy. More often, it involves managing their access, feeding them disinformation and using them as a tool against the enemy. Some Soviet spies were handled this way for many years.

One technique which can be used to uncover moles is to give them something so incredible that they will fall all over themselves to get the information back to their superiors. When they do that, they might make mistakes.

Meanwhile, back in Moscow, U.S. agents could look for the fire alarms that would go off when the information arrived.

By doing this, the U.S. could uncover entire intelligence networks and turn security breaches into counterintelligence victories.

Old News


Originally posted by Hal9000
This may be true, but the public expects to get a truthful and unbiased report from someone like Peter Jennings.

That depends on what you mean by “the public”.

I don't expect any such thing from a professional news merchant. I expect skewed, biased reports that satisfy the objectives of those who sponsor and control the flow of news.

Peter Jennings did his job, and his job wasn't to present truth, but news, and news is a commercial product.

Consumers of professional news may seek truth, but what they get is the perception of truth, and that's not the same thing.




posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing

"As I understand it, the Act came (bureaucratically) seemingly from nowhere" == Gazrok

Obviously WW II did not play a part at all. By that reasoning, I could conclude that the act was arranged totally
by the Roswell AAF commander and commenced as an emergency measure the DAY AFTER ROSWELL.



Clearly Blanchard didn't have anything to do with the National Security Act. Remember , in '47 , the Pentagon was a Brand new Building buzzing with activity.

It is a fact that Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey jumped right in to clear things up at Roswell.

Did you know that he was known to be a UFO debunker, before the Roswell incident? And that he played a role in debunking the '52 wave? Including appearing on T.V. , and issuing a false Press Release that said the Air Force never gave an order to shoot down the saucers?

Seems like he has a good track record of "clearing things up", when it comes to UFOs. Enough so to have been considered a "UFO Expert". With the nickname "Saucer man"!

So he has a track record of "clearing things up", issuing false press releases.

Jennings says Roswell is a myth, I say Brig. Gen . Ramey is the Mythmaker!



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
One technique which can be used to uncover moles is to give them something so incredible that they will fall all over themselves to get the information back to their superiors. When they do that, they might make mistakes.

I am sure this technique was used for that purpose, but not on the scale of Roswell. For one thing if that was the purpose of it, it would be declassified by now and it would have been the explanation the Air Force would have provided instead of Project Mogul. There would be no reason to keep it secret any longer. Another thing is it does not explain all the witnesses’ testimony. They all could not have been in on it.



That depends on what you mean by “the public”.

I don't expect any such thing from a professional news merchant. I expect skewed, biased reports that satisfy the objectives of those who sponsor and control the flow of news.

I meant the general public expects the truth without bias, but we both know it isn't true. And apparently more of the public is becoming more skeptical according to this USA Today Poll. I think more people can see this because more people are getting information from the Internet and not just from TV.

I am just referring to what people expect, and not what we actually get.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   
It is a fact that Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey jumped right in to clear things up at Roswell. == lost shaman

Did you know he was commander of the Eighth Air Force and if he didnt jump in on problems in his command
he would not be a General Officer to begin with?

Did you know that he was known to be a UFO debunker, before the Roswell incident? == lost shaman

Wikipedia says the term "UFO" originated in 1952, so your statement as written is not possible if Wikipedia is correct.

Rather than argue the Ramey situation, this might be of interest to you.

www.subversiveelement.com...

Apology, cant resist this one since nobody picked up on it, not even Hal.

PJ says Roswell is a myth, and if anybody should know, it was PJ.

(PJ in the above statement could refer to Payne Jennings, Col, commander of RAAF base, 9 July - 26 July 1947.)

As far as Majic's supposition goes, there is some circumstantial evidence that points that way. Marcel and Cavitt
did not work for the same people. If Roswell had a potential use as a "spy catcher", that would have been very
compartmented info, limited to CIC, which would make Cavitt be "Jonnie on the spot". So for you, Majic, you
might be interested in this comment from Gazrok's Roswell Part IV - A

"Upon his return, Marcel confronts Cavitt in the intelligence office. Marcel wants the reports filed in his absence,
but Cavitt refuses. Marcel points out that he is the senior officer but is told the orders came from Washington.
If he has a problem, to "take it up with them."

Insert thoughtful remark here: A cover, a cover story, and a cover-up are not the same things. The first two are
completely appropriate to agency actions in specific circumstances, the latter being unlawful under any circumstance.

Like Hal, I disagree with your supposition, but for very different reasons. But before I get too diverted again,
comming up next post will be a proposal for the first of two options for Ufologists to actually use scientific approaches
to study what little they do have.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
It is a fact that Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey jumped right in to clear things up at Roswell. == lost shaman

Did you know he was commander of the Eighth Air Force and if he didn't jump in on problems in his command
he would not be a General Officer to begin with?


This isn't just any old problem its a "Disk". A UFO problem.

I know your a faithful skeptic , but doesn't it bother you that Gen. Ramey issued a false press release about UFOs, and that he is on T.V. and in the Papers in '52 telling people the Air Force didn't issue an order to "shoot down a Saucer" and that UFOs are nothing. ( Go back to sleep kiddies , those were not "Flying Disks" over D.C. two weeks in a row , just temp inversions.)

So what do you think it is that makes him the expert in the following years when he's debunking UFOs ? Especially in '52 when they are buzzing Washington?




Did you know that he was known to be a UFO debunker, before the Roswell incident? == lost shaman

Wikipedia says the term "UFO" originated in 1952, so your statement as written is not possible if Wikipedia is correct.


Sorry but we say UFOs , just because they hadn't come up with the phrase in '47 , in no way means my statement was false.

And what business does the SAC commander have debunking UFOs in the first place? If all they are anyway is weather balloons , and temperature inversions?



[edit on 29-8-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
(Note for Hal - now we have a serious risk of going way off topic)

Option 1. The Ufologist's Model

When studying an unknown, attempt to model it. Keep improving the model until it predicts the
real situation.

Model summary: Assuming an advance designed starship has crashed and been recovered, make a model
that can predict results of such an event.

Constraints:
(a) High technology (500 plus years ahead of present)
(b) Hazardous/Toxic
(c) Reverse engineering will compete in a mix of superstition and religion.
(d) keep it secret

Model objectives:
(a) Predict effect on society, social, technology, religious, etc...
(b) Determine characteristics of reverse engineering successes as a template to identify potential candidates from "normal" technology advances.
(c) identify candidate technologies from modern society that match the templates above.

Reverse engineering is a strange term to use on technology that is well beyond our own. It normally means to use
existing principles and knowledge to study another groups use of those same attributes in their design. What
happens when the design is way beyond the principles and knowledge of your best minds? That is what this model
is all about. And, how we shall cheat. We will know all the things the best minds of the day do not, as we will have
direct knowledge of the technology that crashed.

So, for our first model, the "skycraft" that will crash will be a Northrup Grumman B-2. It is 500 years ahead of the technology of the day.
It is going to crash in Elizabethan England, just to make the model charming.

Background for the non-British folk

Life in Elizabethan England

renaissance.dm.net...

By extrapolating possible knowledge gained by Elizabethan England folk, we will have an idea of what and where we need
to look today for EVIDENCE of starship influence on todays society.
Clear ?



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join