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.

 

Is ATS and UFOlogy a playground for Government mind control researchers?

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
It have always been puzzled by the 30+ year gap in interest.

Do you - or anyone else - have any ideas about this? My sense is we need to understand what specifically was involved in "resurrecting" the forgotten "story".

I believe Marcel responded to an ad Stanton Friedman put in the papers calling for anyone who was there at the time. What prompted him to do that I don’t know.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
The event wasn't forgotten over those 30 years.

By 1950 Frank Scully had written 'Behind the Flying Saucers' , that while not mentioning Roswell , closely parallels with Roswell as Scully details "secret" recoveries of Craft and Bodies by the Military in the New Mexico Desert in the late 1940's.

Also in 1967 Look Magazine featured Roswell in an article.

roswellproof.homestead.com...

If anything I think this proves it was forgotten. Note the Look article said it was one of the Navy’s balloons that was recovered in Ft. Worth in 1947. If it was such a big story you would think the facts would have been readily available.

Anyway, there was a long thread here recently (now deleted unfortunately) that covered this and many other myths surrounding Roswell so I don’t think we need to go down that road again here.




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real

Note the Look article said it was one of the Navy’s balloons that was recovered in Ft. Worth in 1947. If it was such a big story you would think the facts would have been readily available.



I didn't say it was a big story , obviously the "story" didn't "break" until 1978. I also don't think you can really say how readily all the 'facts' would have been in 1967.

The event was not entirely forgotten however, and the idea that something like "Roswell" might have happened in New Mexico was not a new idea.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
I don’t think you should try to draw any conclusions from that diagram. Note it only used 4 sources:

Lobster Magazine (Britain)
Covert Action Information Bulletin
Schnabel,J. Remote Viewers. 1997
Picknett,L. Prince,C. The Stargate Conspiracy. 2001

Most are from Lobster Magazine which probably had a lot of articles covering a wide range of not necessarily related topics.


No conclusions being drawn at all at this point.

However, the diagram, combined with all of the other information available about the kinds of activities Dr. Green was/is involved are important in understanding this.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
I don’t think you should try to draw any conclusions from that diagram. Note it only used 4 sources:

Lobster Magazine (Britain)
Covert Action Information Bulletin
Schnabel,J. Remote Viewers. 1997
Picknett,L. Prince,C. The Stargate Conspiracy. 2001

Most are from Lobster Magazine which probably had a lot of articles covering a wide range of not necessarily related topics.


No conclusions being drawn at all at this point.

However, the diagram, combined with all of the other information available about the kinds of activities Dr. Green was/is involved are important in understanding this.


Question... If the diagram is bollocks, which I believe it to be (4 MYTHOLOGY LADEN SOURCES!), the mythological stories on the web are bollocks, then what value does any of it have? Taking all the data into consideration is certainly a wise thing to do IF the data is good. But if you seek to increase your "understanding" and the data you use to do so is false/corrupt then what have you increased? Your understanding of the mythology surrounding a subject is what you have increased.

My point is, if you are really trying to discover the truth you simply must ignore the noise. The internet is FULL of noise, as a research tool it's very cumbersome because you have to filter out all the B.S. This diagram is a perfect illustration of all that noise and how prevalent false/corrupted data is.


It's pretty obvious that anybody can write just about anything about anyone and publish it on any of the thousands upon thousands of blogs, boards or chat-rooms. That "stuff" becomes part of the data this type of program (the diagram) uses to create its "profile". When the profile is created out of random musings or intentional dissembling it's pretty worthless isn't it?

One of the biggest problems "UFOlogy" has, IMHO, is the vast amount of "data" that people reference is nothing more than personal opinion, paranoid speculation, delusional thoughts written out in prose and or intentional disinformation.

The only really valuable data is the testimony of credible witnesses and the very limited amount of documentary radar imagery, and a handful of photos/videos that have not yet been proven hoaxes.

It no longer astounds me when I see "sources" like this diagram, it's typical of the "research" in this area. It serves one well to seek out the source's "source". In this case, like the rest of the mythology I've seen about this man, it's laughable.

Regarding why Dr. Green is interested in "UFOlogy" he's stated several times to several people he thinks there may be something to the "core story" based on the testimony of the credible witnesses who have come forward over the years. He can't explain their testimony away within his own knowledge anymore than you or I can.

Why there has to be "more to it" for some folks is beyond me. His associations are the only thing I can figure and that old concrete thinking that leads to "guilt by association" must be a hard one to kick.


Springer...




[edit on 12-4-2006 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer

Question... If the diagram is bollocks, which I believe it to be (4 MYTHOLOGY LADEN SOURCES!), the mythological stories on the web are bollocks, then what value does any of it have?

Taking all the data into consideration is certainly a wise thing to do IF the data is good. But if you seek to increase your "understanding" and the data you use to do so is false/corrupt then what have you increased? Your understanding of the mythology surrounding a subject is what you have increased.

My point is, if you are really trying to discover the truth you simply must ignore the noise. The internet is FULL of noise, as a research tool it's very cumbersome because you have to filter out all the B.S. This diagram is a perfect illustration of all that noise and how prevalent false/corrupted data is.


I will not ignore any information. Nor will I give 100% credence to any one source of information. What I try and do is look at all the information and see if there are any patterns of practice and behavior that reflect the beliefs and values of the individual I am trying to get clarity on.

This approach has worked quite well for me, Springer. I do not expect, nor will ever ask, that anyone else adopt my approach.


Originally posted by SpringerIt's pretty obvious that anybody can write just about anything about anyone and publish it on any of the thousands upon thousands of blogs, boards or chat-rooms. That "stuff" becomes part of the data this type of program (the diagram) uses to create its "profile". When the profile is created out of random musings or intentional dissembling it's pretty worthless isn't it?



Taken on it's own - yes. As I have stated previously, I do not give 100% credence to any one source of information.



Originally posted by SpringerOne of the biggest problems "UFOlogy" has, IMHO, is the vast amount of "data" that people reference is nothing more than personal opinion, paranoid speculation, delusional thoughts written out in prose and or intentional disinformation.

The only really valuable data is the testimony of credible witnesses and the very limited amount of documentary radar imagery, and a handful of photos/videos that have not yet been proven hoaxes.

It no longer astounds me when I see "sources" like this diagram, it's typical of the "research" in this area. It serves one well to seek out the source's "source". In this case, like the rest of the mythology I've seen about this man, it's laughable.



I appreciate your opinion and value your input. I also reserve the right to disagree with your conclusions.

From where I sit, the only real valuable data comes from independent sources who have no vested interest one way or the other. And it is especially valuable when these independent sources corroborate information.



Originally posted by SpringerRegarding why Dr. Green is interested in "UFOlogy" he's stated several times to several people he thinks there may be something to the "core story" based on the testimony of the credible witnesses who have come forward over the years. He can't explain their testimony away within his own knowledge anymore than you or I can.

Why there has to be "more to it" for some folks is beyond me. His associations are the only thing I can figure and that old concrete thinking that leads to "guilt by association" must be a hard one to kick.


Springer...



I appreciate your sharing what you believe is motivating Dr. Green in this area. I would like to hear it from Dr. Green himself - in his own words.

Always,
Shawnna



[edit on 4-12-2006 by Shawnna]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
I appreciate your sharing what you believe is motivating Dr. Green in this area. I would like to hear it from Dr. Green himself - in his own words.

Always,
Shawnna
[edit on 4-12-2006 by Shawnna]


Ummm, how is that "what I believe" is motivating him? Those are his words not mine.

Like I said above, he has said this to me, and several other people himself, from his own vocal chords in his own voice box.


S...

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I think this thread would be better severed by discussing the perpetuation of mythology surrounding the UFO Phenomena.

To quote the MoD's Condign Report , "That UAP exist is indisputable." ( Executive Summary , Introduction, Para 1 [ UAP defined in Para 1 as "popularly known as UFOs"] )

Clearly evidence points to an unknown phenomena , although almost no-one focuses their attention on the actual physical phenomena but rather endorse or oppose the mythology that leaches itself to and surrounds the physical phenomena.

With that in mind , I think that the biggest obstacle to understanding any potential phenomena that does exist is the "Fantastical Mythology" that gets perpetuated throughout not only the Ufological Community at large but also the general Public. This "fantastical Mythology" is nothing short of PSYOP's.

PSYOP's can be described as planned operations to convey information ( True or False ) to target audiences (friendly or foe) to support National , Political , Economic , or Military interests.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Great post LS!


As a skeptic I tend to lean towards an "economic" (as in profit motivated or for other personal gain) PSYOP but at the same time I can't completely rule out other more nefarious or clandestine ("piggybacked"?) puposes...

(none of which have anything with to do with discovering, uncovering, or covering up, the "truth" IMO)



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
To pull the curtain aside is to reveal the real Wizard of Oz, a little man at the controls of bells, lights, and whistles that serve to produce the show. And we all know that the show must go on.

You're right, that would be a real bummer.
Tell me it isn't so!



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
And we all know that the show must go on.


And on, and on, and on, and on, and on..............



Especially if there's $ to be made, or covert projects to be hidden!



Always,
Shawnna



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Well , but can't we also say that anything at this point in time that has any human interest value at all is potentially economically profitable via one form of media or another?

Does that fact really undermine or devalue anything ?

I think we need to consider that before we "witch hunt" any "profiteers" we can identify.

Just think if I could afford to subscribe to all the Scientific Journals that cover topics I'm interested in I'd be spending a thousand dollars a month. Just making a point here, needless to say I can't afford to subscribe at this time to Science journals that interest me.

Of course the local library has three Whitley Streiber Books, one Philip Klass, and one Moore & Berlitz.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
No doubt, Lost Shaman. I actually received a U2U from some guy, yelling at me for trying to make money off people. Now mind you, I don't have anything for sale, not even as much as an advert on my website, no pop-ups, or membership fees. My e-books are free. You don't have join anything or even sign up, nothing. You can just surf there and read for free, and wallah, that's it.. It's weird, but he was really angry with me. He swears up and down that i'm just trying to make money off my theories. Meanwhile, millions of people are making money off everything from toilet paper to theories about big foot and reptilians. I was like, calm down dude! It's okay!



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman I think this thread would be better severed by discussing the perpetuation of mythology surrounding the UFO Phenomena.


I concurr. Wait, you don't exist, so should I be answering your post!?


Same denial, different animal.

I have ben studying UFOs since the third grade. Officially, in books, from the library. I have also had three major sightings and witnessed a grand total of four spectacular "craft".

Yet I do not claim to be contactee or recall any missing time, abductions, or posess secret knowledge about any underpinnings of reality. I have no special abilities, nor does God talk to me.

And everything I know I learned on Google
So let's get started!



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheepnis
Saviour- It's true that there are many accounts out there by individuals who appear to be nothing but paranoid delusional types but the stalking and harassment are real in some cases(mine being one).

Because of your interest in UFOs? If so, would you be comfortable in sharing your experiences with us?


Btw the convening of scientists Coral Lorenzen mentioned was the Robertson Panel which was initiated by the CIA and led to the formation of the AISS.

Only problem is I don’t believe there’s any evidence the recommendations of the Robertson were acted upon. Have your read “UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941-1973” by Richard M. Dolan? It’s a bit derivative and it tries too hard to connect the three letter dots in my opinion but nevertheless it covers the major players and events that shaped UFOlogy into what it is today. I’m even more concerned about Dolan’s gullibility now after seeing his performance on that Sci-Fi "Investigates" show on TV recently and reading his latest “grand unification” CT writings on his web site but still his book is a good reference piece IMO.


Kevin Randle
Conspiracy of Silence

You know Randle was an Intelligence officer in the Air Force right? You might want to read this little ditty about Randle and his “research” partner Schmitt…

www.roswellfiles.com...



"As it stands now, there is NO government investigation of UFOs. I have heard that there is a Top-Secret Air Force study, but know that there is not. Until July 1986, I was a captain in the Air Force, and through my job would have had to have access to the channels where those reports would have been made. There were no indications of that study, and if there had been, I would have seen them...
- KEVIN RANDLE writing in "The October Scenario."

Yet, in The UFO Casebook, Randle says:

"My investigations showed me that there was another secret investigation - one classified higher than Bluebook. That’s no longer speculation. It’s fact."

And:

"The October Scenario is simply the theory that there have been no extraterrestrial spacecraft in our atmosphere except for the brief period of October 1973. Prior to that time, there were misidentifications, hoaxes and lies. Afterward, there were more misidentifications and hoaxes."
- CAPTAIN KEVIN RANDLE (Ret.) writing in "The October Scenario".



And if you read the Howard Blum book take note of his description of the formation of the UFO Working Group and the involvement of The Order of The Dolphin.

As a basis for the “Aviary”?


Also in Randles book he mentions William Moores admission to being a disinfo agent.

Moore claimed the disinfo involved animal mutilations and underground alien bases.

It’s kind of hard to tell who’s telling the truth. Consequently I think it’s easier to just assume they’re all lying and not waste too much time trying to make any sense out of it.



The field of UFOs is indeed alive with many and myriad personalities and the opportunity for deception is there. It's up to the serious to weed through the outlandish and mundane and deduce a clear course of action. UFOs are a phenomena that attracts the serious and the crazy and should be kept at arms length with a mind to the reality of our not being the sole proprietors of this universe.

Well put.


After all it may seem impossible now but.................

let’s not cross that bridge until we get to it?


[edit on 9-12-2006 by Saviour Of The Real]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
So you consider this

"New regulations, issued by the Air Defense Command on January 3, 1953, created the 4602d Air Intelligence Service Squadron(AISS). Other new regulations, including Air Force Regulation 200-2, dated August 1953, tasked the 4602d with the investigation of UFOs. All UFO reports would pass through the 4602d AISS prior to transmission to ATIC."

to be inaction on the Robertson recommendations? What planet do you inhabit?
And no I won't bog this thread down with my experiences in regards to harassment.
And yes I'm quite familiar with Kevin Randle and all his writings.
This thread was initially about disinformation in the UFO community and I dare say that yes it exists.
My guess is that the more blatant attempts to discredit any reasonable discourse on the subject are in fact disinfo campaigns.
Check the Weekly World News for the real deal.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheepnis
So you consider this

"New regulations, issued by the Air Defense Command on January 3, 1953, created the 4602d Air Intelligence Service Squadron(AISS). Other new regulations, including Air Force Regulation 200-2, dated August 1953, tasked the 4602d with the investigation of UFOs. All UFO reports would pass through the 4602d AISS prior to transmission to ATIC."

to be inaction on the Robertson recommendations? What planet do you inhabit?

No but in the context of this thread that’s not the recommendation I was talking about. It would appear that was done to address this recommendation…

www.cufon.org...


Dr. Robertson at least was of the opinion that after public gullibility lessened and the service organizations, such as ADC, had been trained to sift out the more readily explained spurious sightings, there would still be a role for a very modest-sized ATIC section to cope with the residuum of items of possible scientific intelligence value. This section should concentrate on energetically following up (perhaps on the advice of qualified Air Force Scientific Advisory Board members) those cases which seemed to indicate the evidence of unconventional enemy artifacts. Reports of such artifacts would be expected to arise mainly from Western outposts in far closer proximity to the Iron Curtain than Lubbock, Texas!

This was in effect leaving the door open to the possibility that some UFO reports may produce evidence of something hostile and of terrestrial origin. Yes, it stripped Blue Book of it’s importance but Blue Book failed to produce any evidence of anything hostile or of extraterrestrial origin and had outlived it’s usefulness to the military brass.

Also, AFR 2-200 was superseded by AFR 80-17 in 1966…
www.nicap.org...

The recommendations I was referring to in the context of this thread are these…


The "debunking" aim would result in reduction in public interest in "flying saucers" which today evokes a strong psychological reaction. This education could be accomplished by mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular articles. Basis of such education would be actual case histories which had been puzzling at first but later explained. As in the case of conjuring tricks, there is much less stimulation if the "secret" is known. Such a program should tend to reduce the current gullibility of the public and consequently their susceptibility to clever hostile propaganda.


And this one which resulted in UFOlogists wearing their tin foil hats firmly in place ever since…


The Panel took cognizance of the existence of such groups as the "Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators" (Los Angeles) and the "Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (Wisconsin). It was believed that such organizations should be watched because of their potentially great influence on mass thinking if widespread sightings should occur. The apparent irresponsibility and the possible use of such groups for subversive purposes should be kept in mind.


Check the Weekly World News for the real deal.

Did you not get the memo? The WWN has been superseded by ATS.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real

The recommendations I was referring to in the context of this thread are these…


The "debunking" aim would result in reduction in public interest in "flying saucers" which today evokes a strong psychological reaction. This education could be accomplished by mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular articles. Basis of such education would be actual case histories which had been puzzling at first but later explained. As in the case of conjuring tricks, there is much less stimulation if the "secret" is known. Such a program should tend to reduce the current gullibility of the public and consequently their susceptibility to clever hostile propaganda.




I'm not sure I'm following you here SOTR.

Your quoting one of the TWO "aims" of the "Educational Program" that you claim wasn't implimented , but you've only highlighted the statment conveying intended benifits from the " 'debunking' aim". Which I find confusing because the statment of benifit is IMO irrelevant in respect to the claim that the 'debunking' "wasn't implimented.

What I find much more relevant to this conversation is the FACT that the CIA had clear intentions to influence the public opinion in the U.S. via the Media!




This education could be accomplished by mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular articles. Basis of such education would be actual case histories which had been puzzling at first but later explained.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I'm not sure I'm following you here SOTR.

First of all I’m not “claiming” anything. I said, “I don’t believe there’s any evidence the recommendations of the Robertson were acted upon”. Secondly, the reason I highlighted that is to point out that the goal of “debunking”, if implemented, was NOT to conceal the agency’s interest in UFOs or hide evidence of alleged ET visitation. Now if anybody has any evidence to the contrary then by all means let’s here it but this is the only indication I’ve seen that's even remotely close…

en.wikipedia.org...


Though the CIA's official history suggests that the Robertson Panel's conclusions were never carried out, there is evidence that contradicts this. Perhaps the most unambiguous evidence for the Robertson Panel's covert impact on news media reporting about UFOs is a personal letter by Dr. Thornton Page, discovered in the Smithsonian archives by sociologist Michael D. Swords. The 1966 letter, addressed to former Robertson Panel Secretary Frederick C. Durant, confides that Page "helped organize the CBS TV show around the Robertson Panel conclusions." Page was no doubt referring to the CBS Reports TV broadcast of the same year, "UFOs: Friend, Foe, or Fantasy?" narrated by Walter Cronkite. (Incidentally, this program was criticized for inaccurate and misleading presentations). Page's letter indicates that the Robertson Panel was still putting a negative spin on UFO news at least 13 years after the panel met.

It should be noted however that Dr. Page was NOT a CIA agent. Evidence of an official “cover up” this isn’t.


What I find much more relevant to this conversation is the FACT that the CIA had clear intentions to influence the public opinion in the U.S. via the Media!

Yes but it did it say they intended to do it covertly? When pressed in later years here’s what the CIA had to say about this…

CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90
www.cia.gov...


To meet these problems, the panel recommended that the National Security Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even the Disney corporation to get the message across.

Now this report does admit they made some mistakes which added fuel to the conspiracy fires and it’s worth reading for interesting tidbits like this…


During the late 1970s and 1980s, the Agency continued its low-key interest in UFOs and UFO sightings. While most scientists now dismissed flying saucers reports as a quaint part of the 1950s and 1960s, some in the Agency and in the Intelligence Community shifted their interest to studying parapsychology and psychic phenomena associated with UFO sightings.

-snip-

CIA also maintained Intelligence Community coordination with other agencies regarding their work in parapsychology, psychic phenomena, and "remote viewing" experiments. In general, the Agency took a conservative scientific view of these unconventional scientific issues. There was no formal or official UFO project within the Agency in the 1980s, and Agency officials purposely kept files on UFOs to a minimum to avoid creating records that might mislead the public if released.

And leaves us with this to ponder…


Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the Agency does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies of rational explanation and evidence.

I agree. If you buy all of this then the question is who's REALLY behind the disinfo and what is their agenda?



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
If you buy all of this then the question is who's REALLY behind the disinfo and what is their agenda?


The umbrella agenda dictates that the public be made aware of what's really going on. However, a fine line needs to be walked while doing this. The information needs to be given in such a manner that those not ready for the information can brush it off. TV and Movies are the perfect means for walking this line.

The agenda still is and will remain one of control. In order for the next level to be reached without the dam bursting open too soon, plausible deniability is to be maintained in all cases of information disbursal. Thus the need for certain ratios of disinformation.

The "who" is irrelevant for the most part. Finding out "who" is a byproduct of integrating the "why". To search for who before understanding why is to put the cart before the horse. Once you catch up with the horses it's easy to see who is driving the cart.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real If you buy all of this then the question is who's REALLY behind the disinfo and what is their agenda?


AND it shows that they don't pose a significant threat.

I can tell you fer sure it ain't John, he's already seen as a whack job. And Zorgon has too much boyish enthusiasm to be able to contain himself.

I think it is the rich, but more likely a private institution or network of for profit organizations, perhaps even on the corporate level, not agencies unless it came to funding...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join