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.

 

the whole UFO UN disclosure thing is crap.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


In the US Midshipman are not treated as officers. Let me infact tell you of a prank that was done to one midshipmen on our ship while we were on cruise in 05.

Our ships BOSN, got one of the mid shipman and outfitted with foul weather gear, a helmet and a line hook. He told the midshipma that the ship gets its mail via Mail bouy, and that to pick up the mail bouy hed have to stand at the front of the ship and pick it up out of the water.
So he went up their, and while "watching" for the mail bouy, and the waves crashing onto the bow and getting him wet, wed shout at him that he better get that #in bouy, that we wanted our damned mail and he had better get it , and he was nervous as #.
after he was soaked and scared #less, the BOSN finally told him it was a prank and we all had some laughs.
I dont give a # how you do things in the UK. I served in the US Navy and thats the way we do things.
In the US a cadet (wtf? in the navy they arent called cadets anyway they are MIDSHIPMEN) isnt an officer until commissioning and holds no authority, not even over enlisted men




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


Again, I think you might be confusing NCO lack of understanding and maturity with official policy. As far as I know all officer cadets (doesnt matter what various names they have) are entitled OFFICIALLY to certain aspects of their rank, not often thesalute except for Pilots, because thats a commision, aside from that they must be because in a crisis situation the chain of command falls to officer cadets BEFORE NCOs.

Im sure you could clown about on boats and im sure not many bat an eyelid, thats the way cadets get hazed, however if you ever had to address them in an official meeting or panel meeting before other officers, you would be expected to address them as sir. If your senior officers all died, your "midshipmen" would be the ranking officers, NOT the NCOs.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


the NCOs would take control, even if only non officially.

A midshipmen, who doesn't yet know jack crap about how a ship runs or the specifics of the vessel hes on during mid shipman cruise, isnt experienced enough to command a warship.
if a midshipman took control, which I doubt, he would be doing everything a senior NCO, likely the CMC, told him to do.

Commanding a ship isn't something someone has the ability to do in their sophmore year at the Naval Academy.
That would be like Sarah Palin becoming president, accept worse.
Commanding a ship takes alot of experience. You have to know all your weapons, their caps and lims, you have to know your engineering plant, you have to know you radars, their caps and lims, you have to know all the equipment, you have to know all the 3m stuff and admin stuff. a CO has to have knowledge of every major department on a ship so well he could walk onto a ship and if needed take command of that vessel. a Midshipmen does not, even closely, have this.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


Officer cadets, midshipmen, are trained to command. They study tactics, strategy and military history, they would always supercede an NCO in a combat information, im not sure why you are arguing this point.

Of course they would outrank an NCO. NCOs arent trained to command, they dont get officer training and they are missing the whole curriculum required for military command.

By the time they are perfoming active duties, they already know all of the stuff you dont as an NCO because its required for them as part of the course. They outrank you in real terms.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 



Again there is more to commanding a ship then history or tactics.
I just listed all the stuff a ships commanding officer has to know. That knowledge is vital to commanding a ship. How could someone for instance, who has no idea of the caps and lims of a weapon, command its use during battle? you couldnt.

In the Navy, command of a vessel requires immense knowledge of this vessel.

Senior NCOs in the Navy do have this, as in the US navy to reach senior NCO level, IE: Chief Petty Officer one must earn his ESWS (enlisted surface warfare specialist) pin. to earn this, you, must learn every department and every piece of equipment and so forth on your ship.

Again, midshipmen do not have the knowledge required to command a navy vessel.

How can you argue that? How is for instance a mid shipmen who has no clue about the 3m (the maintenance system used in the US navy) going to issue orders with regards to carrying out maintenance of the ships systems?

How is a midshipmen, who say, has no clue about the caps or lims of a ships phalanx close in weapon system, going to issue orders regarding its use or defense posture?
How is a midshipmen, who has no clue about force protection, going to set a ships FPCON condition?

and you mentioned tactics... tactics on any naval vessel directly relate to having knowledge of that vessel and what she can do. Without that knowledge, tactics can not be employed.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


They get ALL training operational and tactical during the very first stages of their training. They are tested week in week out and must memorise many of the operational and procedural manuals. They have to know all the weapons, specifications, and operational details from the top of their head at any given time.

I think you need to brush up on what they are being trained. Do you know anyone who has done officer training? I do and I can assure you its taken very seriously. They are EXPECTED to know from memory almost every aspect of the training, they are drilled and tested randomly day in day out, asked the most obscure regulations and weapons details, firing times, ranges, and they MUST know the answer.

By the time they are operational on active duty they know more than any NCO will ever know because if they didnt they would have been dumped out long before then.

The whole reason officers arent trained along with regulars is because officer training is far harder, far more specialised and far more data heavy and they are required to know it all.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 



also another fact you seem to miss, is that in addition to not having any of the aforementioned knowledge, the mid shipmen are only on the ship 2 weeks and this is usually in their sophmore junior and sometime senior years.

so a guy whos been on the ship for less then 2 weeks, who hasnt even finishd academy yet and your talking about giving him commad of the ship?
I dont know how you do things in the UK, but in the US this would NEVER HAPPEN.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by silver6ix
 



also another fact you seem to miss, is that in addition to not having any of the aforementioned knowledge, the mid shipmen are only on the ship 2 weeks and this is usually in their sophmore junior and sometime senior years.

so a guy whos been on the ship for less then 2 weeks, who hasnt even finishd academy yet and your talking about giving him commad of the ship?
I dont know how you do things in the UK, but in the US this would NEVER HAPPEN.


Yes it would because at that time they are already in posession of 100 times more knowledge than an NCO would ever have, as I said, they MUST know it and the MUST know it by heart, EVERY detail.

It isnt GIVEN to tghem it falls to them by order of rank because even a cadet officer has more operational and tactical knowledge than an NCO. Its what they spend their time studying from day one.

Just because they havent been on a ship, doesnt mean that cant name evey part, every weapon, every class, every procedure and rule, calculate angles and vectors, thats what they do, daily.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


I call bull# on this post. especially the specialized part. Officer trainng is NOT more specialized becase officers dont do just one job in the navy.

In the academy they are basiclly trained in leadership principals and Naval history and things such as that. All the tactical stuff and ship specific stuff comes later on, when they are assigned to a ship as a ensign.
Then its OJT. they will learn ther ship. Officers change duties alot too. One tour they could be the BOSN, the next the MPA, the next tour the DCA on that ship etc.
So officer training, atleast as far as the Navy is concered is not specialized.

Enlisted training is however. You will learn one thing very well.
I was a Fire Controlman, with NEC 1122. I worked on the Phalanx Close in Weapon system, its operation and repair. I went through 2 years of training for that system. That is specialized training.

In the Naval Academy they do not teach all the specifics regarding which ships have which weapons and which radars etc etc. they learn that when they get to their ship in the process of earning their SWO designation.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by silver6ix
 



also another fact you seem to miss, is that in addition to not having any of the aforementioned knowledge, the mid shipmen are only on the ship 2 weeks and this is usually in their sophmore junior and sometime senior years.

so a guy whos been on the ship for less then 2 weeks, who hasnt even finishd academy yet and your talking about giving him commad of the ship?
I dont know how you do things in the UK, but in the US this would NEVER HAPPEN.


Yes it would because at that time they are already in posession of 100 times more knowledge than an NCO would ever have, as I said, they MUST know it and the MUST know it by heart, EVERY detail.

It isnt GIVEN to tghem it falls to them by order of rank because even a cadet officer has more operational and tactical knowledge than an NCO. Its what they spend their time studying from day one.

Just because they havent been on a ship, doesnt mean that cant name evey part, every weapon, every class, every procedure and rule, calculate angles and vectors, thats what they do, daily.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]


I call bull# again. They DONT know all this during academy. They learn it when they report to their ship, and their subsequent ships.
When we got a new ensign as our ships weapons officer, we had to explain to him how the phalanx Close In Weapon System worked. Its capabilities and limitations. And when ever wed do excercises and we were going to fire, and the officer had to make a brief on the excercise for the captain, and he needed the CIWS info, he didnt know it. Who did he go to? thats right. US. the enlisted Fire Controlmen whos very specialty was CIWS. Hed ask us for the info, then hed put it in the brief.,

Your supposition that Naval midshipmen in the academy know it all is utter and pure bull# as any US navy veteran will tell you.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


A CEO of a company doesnt repair the aircon


Neither does an officer repair the weapons platforms. What he does know is what they are, what ammo and range they have and all STRATEGICAL knowledge required to command a ship and its learned long before they ever serve on one.

You might know how to repair one gun and fire it, he knows the operating specifications of all of them, how to calculate firing trajectories for every weapon and all the specifics of command which an NCO does not have.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


oh and another thing you seem to make it like all they do at the naval academy is navy training. thats BS. They walk out of the academy an officer, but also with a DEGREE. So along with their naval history and leadership training, they are also fulfilling the dgre requirements of the major, which means not all the trainng their is naval related.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by NavalFC
 


A CEO of a company doesnt repair the aircon


Neither does an officer repair the weapons platforms. What he does know is what they are, what ammo and range they have and all STRATEGICAL knowledge required to command a ship and its learned long before they ever serve on one.

You might know how to repair one gun and fire it, he knows the operating specifications of all of them, how to calculate firing trajectories for every weapon and all the specifics of command which an NCO does not have.




HAHAHAHHAHAHA wow...im sorry but im not only going to call this post BS, but dumb as well.. someone who has never served day in the UNITED STATES navy is going to tell me how the Navy works. wow.

I didnt know the operating specs of my own weapon? BULL#!!!!
I knew all the caps and lims, the characteristcs, ranges, etc for my weapon system. There was nothing I did not know
calculating firing trajectories? Ok whch century are you living in?


Secondly, again I point out that when ever the weapons officer needed said information, for a brief, like range, ammo type used, etc
HE CAME TO US. AND WE GAVE HIM THE INFO.
in otherwords, he did not know and we had to give him the info.
also the same with our department head, a Luitenant. When he needed to talk to the captain about CIWS, he would ask US for info.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by NavalFC]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Again, im not sure where you are getting this from but its patently innacurate:

BASIC Midshipman training includes:

As I said, they are better equipped to lead than any NCO.

NAVAL SCIENCE COURSES A B C D E F G

NASC 101 Intro to Naval Science X* X* X* X* X*

NASC 102 Ship Systems I (Engineering) X X

NASC 201 Ship Systems II (Weapons) X X

NASC 202 Seapower and Maritime Affairs X X X X X

NASC 301 Navigation X X

NASC 302 Naval Operations X X

NASC 351 Evolution of Warfare X X X

NASC 352 Expeditionary Operations X X X

NASC 400 Leadership Lab X X X X X X X

NASC 401 Leadership and Management X X X X X* X

NASC 402 Leadership and Ethics X X X X X X X

Bottom lie, you dont have a clue what you are talking about. You have never seen and know nothing about officer training and your persepective seems to be peering out from over a greasy wrench and assuming...


[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 

No it isnt a opinion.

FACT: They got their descroption of officers uiforms wrong

FACT: If the person had entered the Navy in the 60s, theyd be retired by now. HYT and all. This goes for officer or enlisted. yet this claim maintains this person is on active duty


FACT: another source to the claim, one Gilles Lorant, is protrayed in this as have worked with the CNRS. They say otherwise.


When you look at these facts, this story has nothing left to stand on! the above 3 things are fully verifiable facts, the first 2 via military policy and the 3rd from the CRNS.
This story has nothing to stand on now but the guys claims in and of themselves. The problem here, and indeed a problem with a large part of the UFO research arena is people buy into things alot without analyzing them. Had I come on here and made a post claiming that I knew the UN story was true, that I was in the navy and I was involved, alot of people here would take it as gospel and laud me as some new big witness even though I didnt give jack # for proof. This story is full of holes, and the 3 aforementioned things are facts.


FACT- there is no wrong or right having to do with the uniforms because ITS A EFFING WRITTEN DESCRIPTION. I don't think the journalist reporting on it knew one way from the other, IF this story is true. On top of that, did you personally see a pic of the guys uniform? So MAYBE the journalist was dead on accurate and your just plain wrong.



FROM EXTERNAL SOURCE: Source A was dressed in full US Navy uniform with identifying insignia including name and rank. He showed me his military I.D. which confirmed his name, rank and pay scale. His I.D. card was valid for a three year period and had a vertical barcode on the left hand side next to his photo.
Source

FACT- The article never says that he's active duty, you're making that assumtion. Just because the guy joined in the 60's and by all rights should be retired or should probably be retired does not mean that he can't accept a check from the US Navy. If they have him on payroll to be at the UN then he doesn't even need to be active duty becasue that is a diplomatic OR advisory roll. I personally know this becasue i was offered a check on military pay roll to teach a class to some boots long after i had served.

FACT- the only proof of anything coming from CRNS is your word, and that doesn't get far on this board dude. Had you come in here and blown your mouth off saying you were involved you're correct there would have been people who swallowed it whole and asked for seconds. BUT there would also be twice as many demanding this little thing called evidence. No evidence, no story, no bueno.

So yes when it comes right down to it, this whole thread is your word against any body who tries to say other wise.

As i've said before i don't know what to think either way. I understand the need for protecting valuable sources, but at the same time i can never take anyhting at face value, theres always more to the story, and until i hear more or until some REAL EVIDENCE appears, your reasoning is still thin.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
Again, im not sure where you are getting this from but its patently innacurate:

BASIC Midshipman training includes:

As I said, they are better equipped to lead than any NCO.

NAVAL SCIENCE COURSES A B C D E F G

NASC 101 Intro to Naval Science X* X* X* X* X*

NASC 102 Ship Systems I (Engineering) X X

NASC 201 Ship Systems II (Weapons) X X

NASC 202 Seapower and Maritime Affairs X X X X X

NASC 301 Navigation X X

NASC 302 Naval Operations X X

NASC 351 Evolution of Warfare X X X

NASC 352 Expeditionary Operations X X X

NASC 400 Leadership Lab X X X X X X X

NASC 401 Leadership and Management X X X X X* X

NASC 402 Leadership and Ethics X X X X X X X

Bottom lie, you dont have a clue what you are talking about. You have never seen and know nothing about officer training and your persepective seems to be peering out from over a greasy wrench and assuming...


[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]



These courses dont invovle ship specifics though, particular to a specific vessel! you can learn generalalities all you want, but commanding destroyer is different from commanding a cruiser, even though they both canfire tomahawks. You are trying to say that midshipmen basiclly know everything already and have it all memorized , every weapon every system, by heart, which I and any navy veteran, i wish their were some more here, will tell you is absolutely bull#.
your trying to say that from the moment a midshipmen graduates as a ensign, he has all the knowledge needed to command a ship.
This is also bull#. as any US navy vet will tell you.
Like I said, when officers breif the CO about a specific operation, they go to their enlisted men for the specifics, why? because the officers dont know them.
COntrary to your deluded fanatasy, midshipmen and fresh out of the academy ensigns arent gods of naval knowledge who have every weapon every system memorized by heart. They arent, as any US navy veteran will tell you. your position right now is a foolish one.

your trying to say NCOs dont know the specifics on operation of the gear where as officers do. That too, is bull#.
I gaurantee you I knew more about the Phalanx CIWS then any weapons officer ever did. If every enlisted fire controlmen on our ship would have died, the officers would have been unable to repair it. they dont have the skills or electrical knowledge or computer knowledge necessary.

and the midshipmen on the midshipmens crise are sophmores which means they havent even finished the academy completely! to say they can commad a naval vessel is just plain dumb.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by NavalFC]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by W3RLIED2

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 

No it isnt a opinion.

FACT: They got their descroption of officers uiforms wrong

FACT: If the person had entered the Navy in the 60s, theyd be retired by now. HYT and all. This goes for officer or enlisted. yet this claim maintains this person is on active duty


FACT: another source to the claim, one Gilles Lorant, is protrayed in this as have worked with the CNRS. They say otherwise.


When you look at these facts, this story has nothing left to stand on! the above 3 things are fully verifiable facts, the first 2 via military policy and the 3rd from the CRNS.
This story has nothing to stand on now but the guys claims in and of themselves. The problem here, and indeed a problem with a large part of the UFO research arena is people buy into things alot without analyzing them. Had I come on here and made a post claiming that I knew the UN story was true, that I was in the navy and I was involved, alot of people here would take it as gospel and laud me as some new big witness even though I didnt give jack # for proof. This story is full of holes, and the 3 aforementioned things are facts.


FACT- there is no wrong or right having to do with the uniforms because ITS A EFFING WRITTEN DESCRIPTION. I don't think the journalist reporting on it knew one way from the other, IF this story is true. On top of that, did you personally see a pic of the guys uniform? So MAYBE the journalist was dead on accurate and your just plain wrong.



FROM EXTERNAL SOURCE: Source A was dressed in full US Navy uniform with identifying insignia including name and rank. He showed me his military I.D. which confirmed his name, rank and pay scale. His I.D. card was valid for a three year period and had a vertical barcode on the left hand side next to his photo.
Source

FACT- The article never says that he's active duty, you're making that assumtion. Just because the guy joined in the 60's and by all rights should be retired or should probably be retired does not mean that he can't accept a check from the US Navy. If they have him on payroll to be at the UN then he doesn't even need to be active duty becasue that is a diplomatic OR advisory roll. I personally know this becasue i was offered a check on military pay roll to teach a class to some boots long after i had served.

FACT- the only proof of anything coming from CRNS is your word, and that doesn't get far on this board dude. Had you come in here and blown your mouth off saying you were involved you're correct there would have been people who swallowed it whole and asked for seconds. BUT there would also be twice as many demanding this little thing called evidence. No evidence, no story, no bueno.

So yes when it comes right down to it, this whole thread is your word against any body who tries to say other wise.

As i've said before i don't know what to think either way. I understand the need for protecting valuable sources, but at the same time i can never take anyhting at face value, theres always more to the story, and until i hear more or until some REAL EVIDENCE appears, your reasoning is still thin.


Then dont take my word for it. Email CRNS for yourself if you dont believe me, you are aware they have a website yes? I emailed them and thats what they sent backm, but if you dont beleive me feel free to do it your d self.

second yes it does state he was on active duty. It said his ID card was valid for another 3 years. This is a characteristic of active duty military IDs.
Also incase you missed it, the article claims this person is in a Navy chain of command while seperately working covert ops for an admiral.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Hmm, never mind, waste of time. Yes, they do have it memorized and yes it does cover all the operational vessels, obviously. You think they just picked a single boat?


Not only does it have to be memorized they are expected to recite it on command at any given point in their training when asked, whether they are running, doing the toilet, or get woken at 4am, they are expected to know many of the specifics of ships and weapons from memory.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
Hmm, never mind, waste of time. Yes, they do have it memorized and yes it does cover all the operational vessels, obviously. You think they just picked a single boat?


Not only does it have to be memorized they are expected to recite it on command at any given point in their training when asked, whether they are running, doing the toilet, or get woken at 4am, they are expected to know many of the specifics of ships and weapons from memory.


No they dont! If they have it memorized then why do the officers onboard a US Navy ship need to rely on their enlistedmen for the data to put in briefs? things like the ranges of the weapons, their capabilities, the type of ammunition, hazards and such?

Why? If they have it all memorized then why did the weapons officer need to ask mefor the caps and lims of the phalanx?
Why would officers trying to earn their SWO pin (which I doubt you know what it even is) need to ask me for specifics on weapons?

Bull# bull# bull#/
They do not have the data for every weapon and every system in the US Navy memorized. They will learn those things from on the job experience during their time in the Navy. If what you were saying is true thered be no need for the SWO pin.
I served in the US navy. your posts indicate your in the UK/Europe. I dont know how you do things over there, but we do it this way.
and officers do not , upon graduation from the US Naval academy, have every weapon every system, every ship configuration, every ship platform, memorized and learned. Officers learn the most through OJT.
you wont find a single US Navy Veteran who will agree with you on this.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


Ok, sure. Have fun.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join