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.

 

Are You Still Waiting for Disclosure?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Are you waiting for a Press Conference in which the Press Secretary relays to the press the very words that prove they know that we are being visited by craft that are not from Earth?

How would you respond if President Bush’s Press Secretary came up to the podium and stated “What is flying around in our skies is very real and not constructed by any power on Earth”?

It is exactly what believers are waiting for, and would probably shut some skeptics up real quickly.

Well, wait no longer. What you are waiting for happen, over 56 years ago!!

Presidential Quotes Concerning UFOs:

Let me begin with one of my favorites. Why is this my personal favorite?

Because it is exactly what the believers are waiting for. It is a Presidential Press Secretary releasing a statement from a President of the United States of America, of which was never publicly disputed, nor denied by President Truman.

Okay, let me begin with one of my personal favorites:


I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on earth."

— President Harry S. Truman


Source/Link:
www.presidentialufo.com...


Truman and his long-time friend and Press Secretary Charles Ross. Ross handled the press in the days following the Roswell crash, and prevented the story from becoming a public relations concern.
In April 1950, he passed a message to the press from President Truman saying, " I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on earth." (photo: Truman library)


Other good link for quotes I just found which mentions President Truman’s quote, but not its context:
www.stargate-chronicles.com...
www.qtm.net...
www.search-for-aliens.com...
www.stealthskater.com...
angelicinfusion.com...




Source/Link:
www.projectprove.com...


"I can assure you the flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on earth." President Harry S. Truman - Press conference, Washington DC, April 4, 1950.


I’m not sure of the validity of the claims made on this sight, but this link/source suggests that President Truman also wrote a letter to numerous individuals/Leaders to our allied nation. This may be one of the first disinformation attempts, but it seems to suggest that President Truman had seen the wreckage of the supposed crash in Roswell:
www.qtm.net...


The papers, signed by President Harry Truman who saw the dead aliens, were addressed to the most powerful figures in Britain. Then Prime
Minister Clement Atlee got a copy, as did Winston Churchill, King George VI, the Queen Mother and select members of the House of Lords.
The leaders' reactions reportedly ranged from shock and amazement to outright fear. The document itself stressed the need to keep the recovery operation secret to avoid "a massive religious backlash and worldwide panic." It went on to describe the extraterrestrials in chilling detail.
"Four small human-like beings apparently ejected from the craft before it exploded and crashed in America's southwest," said the report.
"All four were dead and decomposed due to predators and exposure to the elements before their discovery. The beings were between four and five feet tall. They wore tight-fitting silver jumpsuits. Their heads were disproportionately large, with oversized brown eyes, slanted in t he head. Their noses and mouth were mere slits. They had small holes for ears."
The document went on to say that pieces of the starship were strewn for miles. Analysis showed fragments to be a strong and lightweight metal but were otherwise inconclusive. The report did not pinpoint the location of the crash, nor did it say where the bodies and fragment s were taken. But the likeliest destination was Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio - where the bodies of four more humaniods w ere taken after a second crash 10 years later.
Though the U.S. Government has never confirmed either crash, UFO experts are convinced that both wreckage and bodies are still preserved . In fact a super-secret government agency, code-named PI 40, keeps tabs on alien visitors and briefs U.S. Presidents on UFO developments past and present, the British source said.



Mod Edit: cap title

[edit on 4-9-2006 by kinglizard]




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
If Truman said it it must be true. I'm sold.

In todays world, dont expect that to happen. Every time i watch the Discovery Channel or History channel, they present UFO cases that make the "believers" look like crazed goober-looking idiots. Ever notice that?? Anyone telling of UFO's or abduction cases all look freaky? There's a purpose to that. By them looking weird, it sends a message that only "weirdos" see UFO's and only "weirdos" get abducted.

This is all done to make the case stronger that we are alone in the universe.
God created this huge universe just for us.
NOT.

These production companies go out of their way looking for "special" people to do their documentaries, imo. :shk: I think, because of this, most people still frawn at UFO's.

I'm afraid anything short of a landing at the White House would not do.

Even John Titor said we are a long way from finding out anything. I believe it.

Harry's words? They're dismissed as nonsense.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Just like a politician to weasel-word it:

Flying saucers = extraterrestrial spacecraft
given that they exist = if we assume that they exist
are not constructed by any power on earth = well, duh...

So, spaceships from outer space are constructed in outer space...if they exist, that is.

Of course, if they don't exist, they could well be built and maintained by the US military...



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Harry's words? They're dismissed as nonsense.


I agree that they are dismissed by most. An unfortunate victory for those who have succeded in diverting us from truth for well over 50 years.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand
Just like a politician to weasel-word it:

Flying saucers = extraterrestrial spacecraft
given that they exist = if we assume that they exist
are not constructed by any power on earth = well, duh...

So, spaceships from outer space are constructed in outer space...if they exist, that is.

Of course, if they don't exist, they could well be built and maintained by the US military...


But he says they do exist, he does not say "if they exist", he says: "given that they exist".

He is saying they exist, and that they are not constructed from any power on Earth.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
But he says they do exist, he does not say "if they exist", he says: "given that they exist".


Right, but he does not say "they exist", he says "given that they exist".

Why not just say "they exist" outright? Because he's making a hypothetical assumption that they exist. His statement is outwardly true, but the "given" clause allows the negation of the entire sentence.

I can personally assure you that cows, given that they can talk, have nothing interesting to say.

I can also assure you that flying saucers, given that pigs can fly, are powered by fairy dust.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
But he says they do exist, he does not say "if they exist", he says: "given that they exist".


Right, but he does not say "they exist", he says "given that they exist".

Why not just say "they exist" outright? Because he's making a hypothetical assumption that they exist. His statement is outwardly true, but the "given" clause allows the negation of the entire sentence.

I can personally assure you that cows, given that they can talk, have nothing interesting to say.

I can also assure you that flying saucers, given that pigs can fly, are powered by fairy dust.

Example 1:
Source/Link:
www.eh2r.com...


It is best to understand a few definitions given that there are several different types of Polar sunsets, namely:


In this sentence they are not using "given that" as a "hypothetical assumption", they use the term to denote the fact that it is not desputable, because it is both known, and accepted as fact.

Example 2:
Source/Link:
www.informatik.uni-bonn.de...


Given that targeted definitions are usually easier to understand, control, and evolve, a good design principle for Chimera applications is to choose an appropriate collection of targets, so that most of the definitions in the schema can be targeted.


Again, we can see that the term "given that" is used to state something which is a matter of fact, not conjecture or hypothetical.

Example 3:
Source/Link:
www.upenn.edu...


Given that the worm creates a system-level compromise, we are recommending a full system format for infected machines.


Again we see the term "Given that" utilized to state an accepted fact.

Example 4:
Source/Link:
www.libraryndp.info...


However, NCES in its Compare Public Library tool uses non-imputed data for those comparisons so that imputed data have been purged. Actual data as reported are used for those comparisons. Given that the NDP will also be used for comparisons, it uses a dataset from the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) that also has the imputations removed.


Again we see "Given that" used to state a fact which is already accepted as a fact.

Example 5:
Source/Link:
www.atril.com...


This glossary provides definitions for the translation technology terms used throughout the ATRIL site. Given that there are as many definitions of each term as there are researchers and tool vendors, we have attempted to cover as many different accepted meanings as possible.


Example 6:
Source/Link:
www.understandingnlp.com...


Given that people have their own preferred ways of understanding, you need a variety of answers. One approach is to look at an analytical definition of NLP, and explore the meaning the three parts of Neuro-Linguistic Programming:


Example 7:
Source/Link:
www.robertshaw.orcon.net.nz...

74. Given that you are going to develop stipulative definitions in a critical situation, it is important that you adopt procedures that will result in there being a good level of acceptance of the definitions. Stipulative definitions will not continue to be used without some maintenance and the maintenance work is much easier if the audience for the definitions has a good understanding of their development, importance, and credibility.



I believe that in the majority of all cases when someone states "given that" it is not an assumption, but a statement of factuality that needs not be questioned.

In your defense i have seen the term "given that" used to fill in for unknown variables, but i truly do not think this was the case in the quote from President Truman.

I invite you to Google the term "given that" and find instances where it is used as a filler for unknown variables, and as you suggest offer a "hypothetical assumption". In 3 pages of internet hits, i only found one such example, and it was referring to complex mathimatical equasions.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I dout anything short of a simultaneous global display of presence would warrant complete disclosure. Simply put...something too big to deny.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Given that they exist tells me he believed they exist.

That is not speculation.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I believe that in the majority of all cases when someone states "given that" it is not an assumption, but a statement of factuality that needs not be questioned.


And I believe just as strongly that when someone uses "given that", they are usually asking the reader to accept an unproven premise for the sake of the current argument. It is a statement the author does not want to prove, and usually the author does not want to visit the alternative.

Example 1:
Source/Link:
www.eh2r.com...


It is best to understand a few definitions given that there are several different types of Polar sunsets, namely:


The author is asking us to accept the thesis that there are a number of distinguishable types of Arctic sunset. If there is only one type of Arctic sunset, there may no need to understand a few definitions.

Example 2:
Source/Link:
www.informatik.uni-bonn.de...


Given that targeted definitions are usually easier to understand, control, and evolve, a good design principle for Chimera applications is to choose an appropriate collection of targets, so that most of the definitions in the schema can be targeted.


Here, "given that" is used to introduce something which may or may not be a fact; I certainly don't accept that targeted definitions are easier to understand. However, the author needs us to accept it as fact for the rest of the argument to apply.

Example 3:
Source/Link:
www.upenn.edu...


Given that the worm creates a system-level compromise, we are recommending a full system format for infected machines.


We probably should consider that somewhere earlier is a description of the worm which shows how it creates a system-level compromise. Given that premise, this use of "given that" explains why the authors are recommending a full system format. However, if the prolog didn't explain that the worm creates a system-level compromise, the authors are asking us to take the compromise as a given, and the recommendation solely on faith.

Example 4:
Source/Link:
www.libraryndp.info...


However, NCES in its Compare Public Library tool uses non-imputed data for those comparisons so that imputed data have been purged. Actual data as reported are used for those comparisons. Given that the NDP will also be used for comparisons, it uses a dataset from the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) that also has the imputations removed.


Once again, this statement by itself does not firmly establish that the NDP will be used for comparisons; of and by itself it tells us only that the author assumes that it will be used that way. If it was established in the preceeding text that the NDP will be used for comparisons, that's fine; otherwise it may be more accurate to say that, since the NDP might be used for comparisons, it uses a certain dataset.


Example 5:
Source/Link:
www.atril.com...


This glossary provides definitions for the translation technology terms used throughout the ATRIL site. Given that there are as many definitions of each term as there are researchers and tool vendors, we have attempted to cover as many different accepted meanings as possible.


Are there really as many definitions as researchers and vendors? It may be impossible to prove, but, for the sake of argument, we'll say there are as many definitions as researchers and vendors.

Example 6:
Source/Link:
www.understandingnlp.com...


Given that people have their own preferred ways of understanding, you need a variety of answers. One approach is to look at an analytical definition of NLP, and explore the meaning the three parts of Neuro-Linguistic Programming:


Once again, the author needs the reader to agree that people have their own preferred ways of understanding, but does not offer proof. If I disagree, firmly of the opinion that understanding is innate and hardwired into the human psyche, then the NLP is not of any concern.

Example 7:
Source/Link:
www.robertshaw.orcon.net.nz...

74. Given that you are going to develop stipulative definitions in a critical situation, it is important that you adopt procedures that will result in there being a good level of acceptance of the definitions. Stipulative definitions will not continue to be used without some maintenance and the maintenance work is much easier if the audience for the definitions has a good understanding of their development, importance, and credibility.


I'm not going to develop stipulative definitions. But if I was, it might be important that I adopt certain procedures. Ok, let's say I'm going to develop some stipulative definitions: now what?

My experience has been that most people wrap "given that" around ideas which are definitely disputable in an attempt to promote them to facthood; indisputable facts rarely need that treatment. Most people also leave out the all-important "given that premise..."

However, I also feel that a sitting President and his scriptwriter would be more careful with the language, crafting every sentence with attention to specific wording.

If you accept the premise that A is true, then B is also true.
Given that A is true, B is true.
Given that flying saucers exist, they are not from this planet.
Flying saucers, given that they exist, are not from this planet.

I believe he meant exactly what he said:

Take my word for it that flying saucers, if you accept the premise that they exist, are not from this planet.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Well not too many people take the road down electrical highway, oldschool.

Well in math, physics there is the old zero to infinity this and that.

Gravity goes to infinity but goes to zero, magnetic and electric lines go to
infinity but a weak.


There is more as stated below which I wonder about:



J. J. Thomson16, in 1893, restated Tesla's earlier finding
(without attribution), "...if moving tubes of force entering a
conductor are dissolved in it, mechanical momentum is given to it
at right angles to the tubes and to the magnetic induction", adding
that this momentum is "...proportional to the vector product of
electric and magnetic forces". This repeated what Tesla had said,
since the momentum was proportional to the vector product of the
electric and magnetic fields.
Thomson also declared that "...the aether is a storehouse of
mechanical momentum", based on "his" theory, concluding that
"...the aether is itself the vehicle of mechanical momentum, of
amount (1/4*pi C [D . B] per unit volume." As stated by Sir
Edmund Whittaker17, in a steady (electrostatic or magnetostatic)
field, the resultant stresses acting on a volume of the aether is zero,
so that the aether is in equilibrium. But when the electric and/or
magnetic field is variable, the resultant stress on the aether is
consistent with Tesla's earlier, 1891 finding, and Thomson's 1893
equation as stated above.
Tesla's experiment had verified this, using "alternate currents
of high voltage and high frequency", on the assumption that a
changing field was essential to creation of the necessary stress upon
the "medium" (the ether). What is more important, until Tesla's
demonstration, using generators he brought along, the British had
no idea of how to create the necessary high frequency fields.
This, of course, was the basis for Tesla's electrodynamic space
propulsion system.

16J. J. Thomson, Recent Researches in Electricity and Magnetism (1893) p. 13
17 Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Revised and
enlarged edition (1951), Thomas Nelson and Sons, Edinburgh
63



Can electrical impulses energize the magnetic lines of force, as we did call them,
to an extent that creates the ufo forces and observed effects and movements.

Some look evident of high current and voltage effects.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Disclosure is within the mind. It's only a matter of personal acceptance. Why do we desire someone to tell us what is real and what isn't? We can tell ourselves. Intelligence. Also, there is no 0, because 0 is nothing and nothing does not exist.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by dgoodpasture]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
rand,

Seems as though we are stuck on the semantics of it.

I just do not equate "given" meaning the same as "if", nor do i see it used as such very often at all, but i must concede that jargon spoken nearly 60 years ago does not always mean the same as it would this day.

I guess it is fair to say that the term "given that" is interpretted differently by the two of us.

I wonder what it means to other people?

When i hear the term "Given that" i take it to mean the same as the term "It is a given".

And, when something is "a given" it is in reference to something that can not be countered nor proved to be false.

So, what is meant by the word "given" in reference to this quote?

The following websight offers the definitions as follows:
Source/Link:
www.brainydictionary.com...


1) Granted;
2) assumed;
3) supposed to be known;
4) set forth as a known quantity,
5) relation,
6) premise
7) Stated;
8) fixed;
9) as


Another Link supplies us with these definitions:
Source/Link:
www.hyperdictionary.com...

Definition: [n] an assumption that is taken for granted
[adj] acknowledged as a supposition; "given the engine's condition, it is a wonder that it started"
[adj] having possession delivered or transferred without compensation
Synonyms: acknowledged, bestowed, conferred, donated, granted, precondition, presented, presumption, relinquished, surrendered


So, lets add these to the accepted list of meanings of "given"
10) an assumption that is taken for granted
11) acknowledged as a supposition



So let's fit these definitions into the quote, and see what it could mean:

Original Quote:


I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on earth."


Using the definitions to replace the "given that":

1) I can assure you that flying saucers, granted that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

So what does "granted" mean in this context?
Source/Link:
www.hyperdictionary.com...


Definition:
[adj] acknowledged as a supposition; "given the engine's condition, it is a wonder that it started"
[adj] given as a grant; "the special funds granted for his research project"


If something is "granted" it is usually not in reference to something that can not be proven or unproven, but is "acknowledged as a supposition".

I think this one could go either way, in support of your interpretation or mine, so i'll chalk it up as 1 for each of us.

2) I can assure you that flying saucers, which is assumed that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

Assumed is the key word here.
Source/Link:
www.hyperdictionary.com...


Definition:
[adj] accepted as real or true without proof; "an assumed increase in population"; "the assumed reason for his absence"; "assumptive beliefs"; "his loyalty was taken for granted"
[adj] adopted in order to deceive; "an assumed name"; "an assumed cheerfulness"; "a fictitious address"; "fictive sympathy"; "a pretended interest"; "a put-on childish voice"; "sham modesty"
[adj] taken as your right without justification; "was hearing evidence in an assumed capacity"; "Congress's arrogated powers over domains hitherto belonging to the states"


I think it is fair to assume(:lol
that the preffered meaning intended by the original author of the quote is the first definition, as the other ones do not make a lot of sense when put into the context of the quote.

This would supply us with this interpretation of the original quote:
"I can assure you that flying saucers, which is accepted as real or true without proof that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth."

although this one seems to lend credance to your interpretation, it does not make sense, and as you said earlier, does negate the entirety of the sentence.

Without proof, how could they assure me of anything? Yet, they are assuring me that the flying saucers are not constructed by any power on earth, however they are not providing the proof.

I think this one can go either way as well, but does make the whole statement itself moot. 2 for you, 2 for me.

3) I can assure you that flying saucers, Which is supposed to be known that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

If it is supposed to be known, then it is accepted as fact that they do exist.

2 for you, 3 for me.

4) I can assure you that flying saucers, which is set forth as a known quantity that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

Ackward to look at, to say the least. But, if it has already been set (past tense) forth as a known quantity (ie, variable), then again it is something which has already been known, and not yet disputed.

2 for you, 4 for me.

5) I can assure you that flying saucers, relation that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

This makes no sense. So, we are still at 2 for your interpretation, and 4 for my interpretation, with 1 n/a.

6) I can assure you that flying saucers, with the premise that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.
Another word to get the definition for ....
Source/Link:
www.hyperdictionary.com...



Definition:
[n] a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
[v] set forth beforehand, often as an explanation; "He premised these remarks so that his readers might understand..."
[v] take something as preexisting
[v] furnish with a preface


This example could be argued on the terms of semantics, however i concede that it supports your interpretation more so than mine.

The count: 3 for you, 4 for me, and 1 n/a.

7) I can assure you that flying saucers, stated that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

I'm not sure this one makes sense, nor fits absolutley under either of our interpretations, so i'll count is as an n/a, if there are no objections. However, i would like to add that "stated" is in the past tense, therefor may mean that it is simply something that has already been said. Again, not really supporting either of our stances on the definition.

3 for you, 4 for me, and 2 n/a.

8) I can assure you that flying saucers, fixed that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

3 for you, 4 for me, and 3 n/a.

9) I can assure you that flying saucers, as that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

Rand, what do you think of this one? I'm not entirely sure how to count this one myself. Hmm. Well, the grammar might be off, but reviewing the word "as", it does not make sense.

3 for you, 4 for me, and 4 n/a.

10) I can assure you that flying saucers, an assumption that is taken for granted that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.

Can't an assumption be a best guestament when all known variables don't fullfill the equasion? Can't the assumption be what is what all measurable evidence tells us?

I'm not going down without a fight!!

4 for you, 4 for me, and 4 n/a.

I'm beginning to dislike semantics.

11) I can assure you that flying saucers, acknowledged as a supposition that they exist, are not constructed by an power on earth.


I know that a supposition is the result of the cognitive process of reasoning, which usually means "given everything known" in which case i might add that everything known is a GIVEN, i can see how this could hold a meaning that would support either of our arguements.
Definition of: "Supposition"
Source/Link:
www.hyperdictionary.com...


Definition:
[n] the cognitive process of supposing
[n] a hypothesis that is taken for granted; "any society is built upon certain assumptions"
[n] a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence


Huh, what's the count?

5 for Rand, 5 for Esoteric, and 4 that are N/A which made little sense.

All that work to prove we are both right, and both wrong.

So what does it mean to other members here when something is a "given"?

Fact or speculation based on assumption?

"given that"

Given that the statement is assuring me, i think i hate politicians that assure me of anything based upon conjecture, hypothesis, and assumptions.

Thanks Rand for teaching me something. I can see how it can be interpretted either way, and both are right.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Well... we can't be complety sure if they exists and are visiting us "given" the fact that neither the supposed extraterrestrials or the US Gov. seems to be interested to show/tell us the truth openly. But ... with all those cases from more than 50 years to now, all over the world, I bet in fact they exists without any doubt, whoever they are or wherever they come from.
Disclosure? Nah... I think all this issue is extremely compartmentalized, today involving too many private interests, so much power over all the thing... just a reflect of the economic/social system the humanity has created. If something is going to be disclosed, it must come directly from those intelligencies acting on this planet, whoever they are, but reading all the stuff, all those stranges reports of abductions, the way that those intelligencies seems to work, hiding, acting under the shadows, giving false messages, plus the hoaxers... I don't see any beacon of light over here. Anyway, personally, I never will lose my faith.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
rand,
Seems as though we are stuck on the semantics of it.
I can see how it can be interpretted either way, and both are right.


The real lesson is not to take a politician at his/her word, because those words are careflully crafted to be interpreted in the way the listener wants to hear them. Judge by actions, not by rhetoric.

In the case of Give-em-hell Harry, I figure he didn't think the UFO phenomenom was of any real importance, because all he threw at the situation were words, not budgets.

It's a true shame that the upper levels of military service, education, business, and science are mostly political, but that's a valuable insight in itself.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
rand,
Seems as though we are stuck on the semantics of it.
I can see how it can be interpretted either way, and both are right.


The real lesson is not to take a politician at his/her word, because those words are careflully crafted to be interpreted in the way the listener wants to hear them. Judge by actions, not by rhetoric.


I agree with you, especially the highlighted bold portion. I believe it is very possible to extract truth from all of it to include the disinformation efforts. I've elluded to this in numerous posts and threads i have contributed to, or authored. I'd like to try to say the same thing, but in different terms:

We can measure truth through the adoption of policies, and determine intention through mere observation of actions and behaviors, which are the byproduct of intentionality. I believe we can extrapulate some measure of truth by earnestly evaluating actions and behaviors and hold them up to reference what plausible scenarios would justify their intentions.


In the case of Give-em-hell Harry, I figure he didn't think the UFO phenomenom was of any real importance, because all he threw at the situation were words, not budgets.


In Harry's defense he did have a lot going on, and was the first person on the planet who had to make a decision concerning the use of atomic weapons being used to kill in such a massive scale. He did have alot on his mind, as well as forming the Air Force as its own entity a month or so after "the Roswell incident".

Thanks Rand, for providing me with cerebral stimulation.




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Considering that there was 1 country that had nuclear capability at the time, and that 1 country's head of state said such a profound statement about the ufo phenomenon, i thought i would bump this thread so members could re-hash it.

thanks,
john



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join