5/26/08 NY Times Article on UK UFO Files

Just another let down by the MSM, this time it's a poorly researched article put out by the New York Times.

It's a shame that this article will reach so many people with inaccurate information, but I guess that's the status quo.



Here in the first two paragraphs, you can feel the scorn wafting off the words like stench off a hunk of stinky French cheese.



If you can't explain some of them, then how can you rule out the possibility of them being extraterrestrial, but then I guess logic doesn't figure into this quote.

If you are not totally disgusted yet, feel free to read their inaccurate description of Project Blue Book etc. if you have the stomach for it.

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by LateApexer313


If you are not totally disgusted yet, feel free to read their inaccurate description of Project Blue Book etc. if you have the stomach for it.

Come on Late, you and I know better. I sense your frustration, but we both know the truth about the MSM by now.

The MSM, all of it, is not for us anymore. We are awake, and thank you for pointing that out.

reply to post by seawolf197


I know I know seawolf, but I can always dream

Hope springs eternal and all of that jazz, I guess what frustrates me the most is derisive nature of the article. The writer doesn't even bother to disguise her condescending scorn and contempt for the witnesses testimony.

The descriptions under the witnesses drawings in the article particularly made my blood boil. But I am good now! I think.

Edit to add this:

Ok NOW I really feel better I just sent the reporter an e-mail.

Wow. Just read your poorly researched article on the UK UFO files. I don't know what shocked me more, the lack of research or the undisguised derision and condescending tone throughout the piece in regard to all the witness testimony. You allude to the witnesses being drunk or old, and put sarcastic comments under the witness drawings and of course, you chose the incidents from the UK files that suited the whole mood of your piece, which is to present yet another closed-minded stamp on a subject you obviously feel should be ridiculed and laughed at.

What about the air force personnel sightings, and the many sightings reported by police officers? You chose the incidents suited to your own personal opinion obviously instead of presenting a broad view on some of the more interesting and unexplained cases in my opinion and I was highly disappointed in your article.

Nothing like firing off a useless, yet venting e-mail directly to the source of the frustration!

Happy Memorial Day to the U.S. based ATSers

[edit on 26-5-2008 by LateApexer313]

Originally posted by LateApexer313
reply to post by seawolf197

 

The writer doesn't even bother to disguise her condescending scorn and contempt for the witnesses testimony.

Once again you are spot on. Right on the money. This kind of information is just trash. It's put out to those sleeping in their own unfortunate dysfunctional thought process. Now those people can go "Whew, thank God that was explained Ma, now get me another beer, I want to watch me some I Love Lucy." If you want to dare to dream, dream they can be woken up.

What you have really pointed out is the depth, the sick depth, those that control the masses have gone. Now, it's reporting by in your face. Don't worry about what's behind the curtain, we will let you know. "Again, Whew, thanks."

This party is coming to an end.

The NY Times? It's just slide of hand in this article. It sole purpose is for the reader to look away from UK UFO files now. Nothing to see here folks, The NY Times has spoken. No need to look into this any further.

Something else I find interesting about the article, have you noticed how the rest of the world wants to come together on this issue, but the US is really holding on for dear life? It doesn't make me wonder, like you, it makes me sick.

Edit to add: Way to go! You are proactive in your response to the reporter.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by seawolf197]

What you have really pointed out is the depth, the sick depth, those that control the masses have gone. Now, it's reporting by in your face. Don't worry about what's behind the curtain, we will let you know. "Again, Whew, thanks."

Exactly my friend...don't think, just let us tell you what to believe.

The NY Times? It's just slide of hand in this article. It sole purpose is for the reader to look away from UK UFO files now. Nothing to see here folks, The NY Times has spoken. No need to look into this any further.

Correct again, "I am a reporter for the NY Times therefore, I have deemed this topic unworthy for your consumption, move along to the Indy 500 results. Thank You, The Management" LOL.

Yes I have noticed that about other countries releasing their files and yet, you have to wonder...releasing the files is one thing, there's no hard evidence to go along with the files.

So on the surface it looks like they are disclosing but where are the radar reports, where are the videos and photos they undoubtedly have...surely they have these things and yet, where are they?

reply to post by LateApexer313


When I read the name of the reporter: Lyall. I thought, hmmm? That is interesting. Talk about right in your face. Could it be.... Lie Always.

They probably laughed when they created this name. They probably thought "The masses are so stupid." Who's laughing now? The article is the real joke.

I had to flag your thread Late. What's going on in this article is something that I can only hope people will understand.

Nothing gets by MS FBI and CIA where media releases go.

The data have been filtered and suppressed for years.

Talk about it on ATS and its plane plane plane reflections duh da duh da.

No expert based on observations can give any answer better than
swamp gas and ball lightning.

I just saw UFO Greatest Story Ever Denied part one and that old
excuse was being used by the expert in charge.

Bully tactics play out and witnesses change their minds, you see it
here on ATS.
Yeah, that must be it, I photographed a bird.
Go out and try to photograph a bird, you will get a UFO quicker.



[edit on 5/26/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by LateApexer313
Hello Late nice post and believe me you're not the only one who's disgusted, but unfortunately we all have to deal with these guys with their incrudulity that goes beyond imagination with a closed mind that reminds me of a safe from a bank hiding info meanwhile making snide remarks behind peoples back and commenting how gullible most people are when he writes his superficial and shallow news article. They have to believe : he says;. because I said so. HA. Let him wallow in his own confusion and you my friend stay calm and channel your positive energy for you have a lot of IT.

STAR & FLAG

This is pretty stupid. The "journalist" in question probably bought a UFO "documentary" from the History Channel, looked at a few of the sillier UK UFO files, and called it good. Disregarding more than 100 years of DOCUMENTED UFO cases. This kinda crap makes me sick.

reply to post by projectvxn


Yes, it makes me sick as well. Can you imagine what else they are reporting that's also inaccurate and poorly researched?

There's no way you can believe anything anymore that's printed.

Just an update..in case anyone was losing sleep over this The reporter that did this story? Of course didn't respond to my e-mail and it's June 15 As if any of us thought she would!