the whole UFO UN disclosure thing is crap.

reply to post by nfotech


I mean it's interesting nonetheless. You have to wonder what "someone" is up to. Like you I don't take what "A" says as being truthful....I'm extraordinarily suspicious of these characters.

So, whats your name? I'm at the disadvantage of not knowing who you are.

I'm no one in the "established" research scene, I try to stay far to the outside as much as possible. I just happened to be quick enough to get a FOIA in on this case while the trail was still warm. After things got weird I developed my own doubts and bailed out. That's why the FOIA thing isn't presented as part of the main case, (besides being somewhat unverifiable). I kept two other researchers in the email chain but the final, weird bit on that one came via the phone.

Have you ever heard of a FOIA response where the party responsible starts emailing the requester? The headers went back to State but it did freak me out at the time.

That's where I started wondering what the "real" story is and the other things mentioned just firmed it up for me. Someone seems to be going to a lot of trouble to keep this one on a very slow simmer. That could be seen as matching the "slow, controlled" disclosure thing or something much darker. My thing is, if it's real disclosure why start releasing info this way? If the target is 2013 / 2017 why not just wait? It feels like someone's personal mind game....

It does seem like the media is warming up to UFOlogy but even that's not pointing to any one definite thing.

I'd be interested in what Bruce says, I don't believe he's made a direct statement other than allowing someone "elsewhere" to post an email response. I'm thinking he did confirm meeting and verifying the source in that one but we're talking around 2 months ago? I haven't been over to see what the latest developments are and must have missed Lorant's "confession".

reply to post by nfotech


At this point in time, taking anything as a single play is fruitless. Everything thats playing right now, from the credit crunch, the election, media positions, political manouvering and corporate repositioning would be best considered in terms of an overall strategy.

I think certain aspects of the disclosure game, being played out by many pro disclosure organisations, have changed the rythm and environment and some of what we are seeing is damage limitation, adaptation to the new threats presented.

Something is being forced and someone other agenda is reasserting its own position in all of this. You are right the exact nature of it right now still has several possiblities and for me there are more players at the table that are being considered.

Some other agenda is ranking the pressure on traditional positions in all of this, like chess, increased pressure and forced moves. I couldnt begin to hazard a guess as to who will win because I cant really identify in my mind the alternate agenda here, although im pretty convinced as to what we are seeing in response. Question is, is the response part of the pressure agendas own play here or does it secure the original position.

Theres some very fascinating financial and geo political events happening right now, thats for sure, and they are all connected to the same back game in some way or another. Its possible theres been some fragmentation of the original "group" a division of direction somewhere along the lines and thats what is driving the current spate of activity, or its possible the other agenda is still very obscure and not even the other players are aware of the pressures being applied.

I definately think the coming year is going to be very intersting and im sure soon enough we will start to see where all this positioning leaves certain theoretical idelogies, secure or in deep, from there you could possibly get an idea of who is playing and who is being played here.

For me theres a definate play from what might be termed the "MAJIC" agenda as it has been proposed, many of the key actions seem to be repositions and moves to secure certain threats, however im still not convinced as to whether they have control. If theres another agenda playing the long term game here, maybe this repositioning is designed to put them where they want them.

I find it all very interesting, like a geo political soap opera of sorts. m not even sure "truth or lie" equates any more as I believe both agendas are playing the field with both truth and lies, the real power is in the "perception of a threat" more than any truth.

Originally posted by nfotech
Nothings changed , especially your continued habit of debunking based on your own bad interpretation.

Nothing changed as to the FOIA, I added in the details which you've proven to be a complete waste of time. As I said in the original post, a researcher who submitted the only FOIA request to date was able to verify material facts of the case. If you can't understand that there is no change in story at all between that post and the follow up all you're doing is reinforcing my belief that you suffer from poor reading comprehension.

Rather than debunking this case based on one article why don't you do some research and look up all the information releases made by the case sources? Salla was brought into the case very recently, basing your entire disbelief based on his article (which is not completely accurate) just makes it clear you haven't really bothered to do much research.

As I already stated, twice - Macabee met with and verified Source A as being exactly who and what he claims to be. Sadly his credibility runs circles around yours when it comes to the Navy. (His service record and research history is public record and he is very respected on both sides of the debate) You'll have to dig around beyond Salla's information releases to find that one. (Thanks for proving exactly my point when I told them involving Salla was a horrible idea)

If Macabee states publicly that he did not meet with and verify Source A then the primary sources are lying and that would be something of concern. This was one of the first questions the outside investigators asked and the reply can be found elsewhere.

I'd advise you to look up all the case data especially that which comes from primary rather than secondary sources. Or continue to believe whatever makes you happy. You've more than proven your verdict on this case is based on very poor grounds.



[edit on 29-10-2008 by nfotech]

The fact still remains that you alleged that he was given info in exchange for dropping a FOAI request. that right there is bull#. The government can deny a foai request, they dont need to bargain to be able to do so.

Macabee runs circles around me? Are you this much of a tool? MacAbee hasnt provided the public any names or documents to back up the claim, or identified who source A is specifically..so with no evidence you are swalloing this whole and asking for seconds as another poster put it.

you say theres all these public records, well then where are they and how can we get them without a name?

Originally posted by nfotech
I'm no one in the "established" research scene, I try to stay far to the outside as much as possible. I just happened to be quick enough to get a FOIA in on this case while the trail was still warm. After things got weird I developed my own doubts and bailed out. That's why the FOIA thing isn't presented as part of the main case, (besides being somewhat unverifiable). I kept two other researchers in the email chain but the final, weird bit on that one came via the phone.

Have you ever heard of a FOIA response where the party responsible starts emailing the requester? The headers went back to State but it did freak me out at the time.

That's where I started wondering what the "real" story is and the other things mentioned just firmed it up for me. Someone seems to be going to a lot of trouble to keep this one on a very slow simmer. That could be seen as matching the "slow, controlled" disclosure thing or something much darker. My thing is, if it's real disclosure why start releasing info this way? If the target is 2013 / 2017 why not just wait? It feels like someone's personal mind game....

It does seem like the media is warming up to UFOlogy but even that's not pointing to any one definite thing.

I'd be interested in what Bruce says, I don't believe he's made a direct statement other than allowing someone "elsewhere" to post an email response. I'm thinking he did confirm meeting and verifying the source in that one but we're talking around 2 months ago? I haven't been over to see what the latest developments are and must have missed Lorant's "confession".

you dont even seem to understand how FOIA works given your posts in this thread, especially the one where you allege he was given the information for agreeing to DROP the FOIA request. thats just bull# right there,

reply to post by NavalFC


Hes presenting a case, all you seem to be doing is throwing down on some personal point of view. Maybe you could tone down the language a little? As I was made aware this is a board where kids are and you seem to be chucking in a lot of needless cursing.

I can now debunk this fully with some new information:exopolitics.org...

in this it says:
"He subsequently showed me an album filled with photos, military patches and cards that represented his various assignments and awards since first joining the US Navy in the 1960s. He explained each of the pages inside of his album to all present. The material he showed conclusively proved that he was an electronics warfare specialist with the US Navy."

1. Officers dont specialize. If your a Navy officer on a ship you could be assigned to any department to work in it, as well as learn. Infact many officers do multiple duties during one tour..one group of time you might be the admin officer, but if the captain wants to shift you aroundyou could end up being the MPA o any other officer in the general officers billets.
One could serve a the temporary Electronics Warfare Officer on board a ship, but it is not a specialty position, and if you are sent to a diferent division or you leave the ship you are NOT still a "electronics warfare officer"


2. Electronic Warfare Specialist is a enlisted job, it is the Navy rating EW


3. The EW rating doesn't exist anymore. It was eliminated in 2003/2004 and the duties and responsibilities of that rating were handed over to the rating CTT, Cryptological Technician because the Navy found that the duties of both ratings are similiar enough to do this, so all new incoming EW trainees become CTT and any current EW also became a CTT.

So this person could not be in the navy now, there are no more EWs.


So from this:

1. The person is not in the navy now. That job no longer exists
2. If they were in the Navy, they were enlisted. EW is a enlisted mans job.
3. If they were enlisted then #1 is also true because of high year tenure.
4. The phrase join again supports this. you dont JOIN the Navy as an officer. You get selected.

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by NavalFC

 

Hes presenting a case, all you seem to be doing is throwing down on some personal point of view. Maybe you could tone down the language a little? As I was made aware this is a board where kids are and you seem to be chucking in a lot of needless cursing.

It hasnt been a personal point of view. they have been facts to how the Navy works and is structured. Unlike you, who tried to insist officers know everything by the time they are done with training, which I was glad to see another vet posted and callled you on.

reply to post by NavalFC


He showed an ALBUM, meaning his PAST career. So yes he could have been a specialist which would also account for why he would get a waiver and have stayed in the Navy because waivers are commonly given regarding specialist roles.

He could then have achieved promotion and officer training in recognition for his skills or duties, an NCO can be promoted to officer. All NCOs have the right to apply for officer selection. The person had a long career and plenty time to do it, you do not have the facts of their career and nothing you have presented has invalidated their career.

This can be done by taking courses and in some cases without even having a degree.

Originally posted by NavalFC


It hasnt been a personal point of view. they have been facts to how the Navy works and is structured. Unlike you, who tried to insist officers know everything by the time they are done with training, which I was glad to see another vet posted and callled you on.

Nobody called me on anything. You dont "give" a green trainee command, was all that was said. But under battle conditions while at war, the next in command would be the officer cadets, not the NCOs

If they are on active duty, they are already through teh curriculum which I posted for you and yes, they would fall next in the line of command. I have several family and friends who have been army and RAF, and I asked someone yesterday who called your suggestion "jar head mechanics"

If a trainee officer was on active duty, the command would fall to them before any NCO in the event all other officers were killed.

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by NavalFC

 

He roles.showed an ALBUM, meaning his PAST career. So yes he could have been a specialist which would also account for why he would get a waiver and have stayed in the Navy because waivers are commonly given regarding specialist

He could then have achieved promotion and officer training in recognition for his skills or duties, an NCO can be promoted to officer. All NCOs have the right to apply for officer selection. The person had a long career and plenty time to do it, you do not have the facts of their career and nothing you have presented has invalidated their career.

This can be done by taking courses and in some cases without even having a degree.

This post is BS.

An electronic warfare specialist, enlisted, who applies for and is selected for officer training, is then NO LONGER A ELECTRONIC WARFARE specialist.
They would no longer hold the designations for this. They would become an OFFICER CANDIDATE and when commissioned, an officer.

and you forgot the fact that the speciality doesnt even exist anymore.

I was a Fire Controlman, rating FC specializing in the phalanxclose in weapon system, blocks 0-1A and block 1B nec 1121-1122,
had I become an officer, I would have no longer been an FC.

as far as your assumptions about speciliast roles and high year tenure waivers, your full of #. Your in the UK not the US you dont know jack

and also, "speciliast roles"? do you even read up? you obviously have no clue how the US Navy works.

EVERY RATING IN THE NAVY is a specialist role. Each rating has its own duties and responsiblities and the equipment maintain. FCs work on the weapons platforms, gunners mates specialize in small arms, Quarter masters specialize in navigation. Everyone in the enlisted navy specializes in something!!!!!! this does not make you immune to high year tenure!
because it applies to everyone!!!!!

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by NavalFC


It hasnt been a personal point of view. they have been facts to how the Navy works and is structured. Unlike you, who tried to insist officers know everything by the time they are done with training, which I was glad to see another vet posted and callled you on.

Nobody called me on anything. You dont "give" a green trainee command, was all that was said. But under battle conditions while at war, the next in command would be the officer cadets, not the NCOs

If they are on active duty, they are already through teh curriculum which I posted for you and yes, they would fall next in the line of command. I have several family and friends who have been army and RAF, and I asked someone yesterday who called your suggestion "jar head mechanics"

If a trainee officer was on active duty, the command would fall to them before any NCO in the event all other officers were killed.

RAF? Again your speaking of the UK.

EARTH to you: the UK and US militaries are not RUN IN THE SAME MANNER. Why cant you grasp this? Maybe this is why youlost the revolutionary war, a bunch of greens commanding your ships hahaa

but in all seriousnessm first off during war??

Ok, big mistake there. I dont know how you do things in the UK but no midshipmen sails with any US Navy ship to a war zone.

The midshipmens cruise, whereby midshipmen gp under way on a ship, is done in US waters and they are onboard for like 2 weeks.

So that wouldnt happen. But now your just being really loopy, to suggest that in a war, command of a US naval war vessel would be given to a midshipmen if every officer onboard died. this is not the case and wnt ever be the case.


I dont try to tell you how things in the UK work. Why? I havent a clue. But for some reason you seem insistnt on counting your UK experience for the US. and this is plain bull#.

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by NavalFC


It hasnt been a personal point of view. they have been facts to how the Navy works and is structured. Unlike you, who tried to insist officers know everything by the time they are done with training, which I was glad to see another vet posted and callled you on.

Nobody called me on anything. You dont "give" a green trainee command, was all that was said. But under battle conditions while at war, the next in command would be the officer cadets, not the NCOs

If they are on active duty, they are already through teh curriculum which I posted for you and yes, they would fall next in the line of command. I have several family and friends who have been army and RAF, and I asked someone yesterday who called your suggestion "jar head mechanics"

If a trainee officer was on active duty, the command would fall to them before any NCO in the event all other officers were killed.

the top 3 on a US Navy ship:

CO, XO, COMMAND MASTER CHIEF (e-9..enliste)

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by NavalFC


It hasnt been a personal point of view. they have been facts to how the Navy works and is structured. Unlike you, who tried to insist officers know everything by the time they are done with training, which I was glad to see another vet posted and callled you on.

Nobody called me on anything. You dont "give" a green trainee command, was all that was said. But under battle conditions while at war, the next in command would be the officer cadets, not the NCOs

If they are on active duty, they are already through teh curriculum which I posted for you and yes, they would fall next in the line of command. I have several family and friends who have been army and RAF, and I asked someone yesterday who called your suggestion "jar head mechanics"

If a trainee officer was on active duty, the command would fall to them before any NCO in the event all other officers were killed.

the top 3 on a US Navy ship:

CO, XO, COMMAND MASTER CHIEF (e-9..enliste)

reply to post by NavalFC


Once again a whole post to nowhere. Yet again ill point out that he was shown an ALBUM. Doesnt say he was at THAT TIME a specialist it confirmed he "WAS" past tense.

Or when hes promoted and the rules changed did his timeline and photo album get erased too?

Once again, you dont have a point. He could very easily have started as a specialist, he could very easily have been promoted to an officer and he would most likely have a PHOTO album which had fotos of his career throughout.

You need to read and then debunk because nothing you have posted ever comes close to debunking the guy.

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by NavalFC

 

Once again a whole post to nowhere. Yet again ill point out that he was shown an ALBUM. Doesnt say he was at THAT TIME a specialist it confirmed he "WAS" past tense.

Or when hes promoted and the rules changed did his timeline and photo album get erased too?

Once again, you dont have a point. He could very easily have started as a specialist, he could very easily have been promoted to an officer and he would most likely have a PHOTO album which had fotos of his career throughout.

You need to read and then debunk because nothing you have posted ever comes close to debunking the guy.

are you joking? ive shot that story full of holes.

and whats with the album being the PAST?
they didnt say he was a electronic warfare specialsit then became an officer, now, they said he was an electronics warfare specialist.

Ive shot this story full of more holes then swiss cheese

[edit on 29-10-2008 by NavalFC]

reply to post by NavalFC


""He subsequently showed me an album filled with photos, military patches and cards that represented his various assignments and awards since first joining the US Navy in the 1960s. He explained each of the pages inside of his album to all present. The material he showed conclusively proved that he was an electronics warfare specialist with the US Navy."

Actually the said was, was meaning then

Once again, the only thing you shot was your own foot with a high calibre round.

Could he have been a specialist in the past? = Yes

Could he have an album to confirm it? = Yes

Could he pass high year tenure? = Yes, waiver due to specialty and other reasons.

Could he have been enlisted and been promoted to officer, or applied to be an officer? = Yes

Theres the simple fact, whether or not he was telling the truth I dont know, but you certainly havent debunked him, I believe that story far more than any of the stuff you have just churned out.

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by NavalFC

 

""He subsequently showed me an album filled with photos, military patches and cards that represented his various assignments and awards since first joining the US Navy in the 1960s. He explained each of the pages inside of his album to all present. The material he showed conclusively proved that he was an electronics warfare specialist with the US Navy."

Actually the said was, was meaning then

Once again, the only thing you shot was your own foot with a high calibre round.

Could he have been a specialist in the past? = Yes

Could he have an album to confirm it? = Yes

Could he pass high year tenure? = Yes, waiver due to specialty and other reasons.

Could he have been enlisted and been promoted to officer, or applied to be an officer? = Yes

Theres the simple fact, whether or not he was telling the truth I dont know, but you certainly havent debunked him, I believe that story far more than any of the stuff you have just churned out.

"Could he pass high year tenure? = Yes, waiver due to specialty and other reasons."

everyone in the #ing enlisted mans US Navy has a specialty!!!! this is not grounds for a HYT waiver! again you dont have an inkling how the US Navy works or it policies. you are trying to judge based n your knowledge of the UK military, and that is Bull# and you know it.
EVERYONE IN THE #ING NAVY , ENLISTED, SPECIALIZES IN SOMETHING.
another thing, in the US Navy one does not just get promoted to officer!

You dont go to bed one day enlisted and wake up an officer! it doesnt work that way. Once your enlisted there are a few ways to become a officer:
If you have a degree already, cou can apply and be accepted to OCS
If you dont, you have to apply either for the seaman to admiral or admission to the naval academy, both of which inovlves 4 years of earning a degree.

Quit trying to judge the US by the UK. They ARE NOT THE SAME. I dont give two rats asses what the RAF or RN policies are. they are different.
something you are unable to grasp.

reply to post by NavalFC


Once again what was your point?

Specialty waivers are listed in the US NAVY regs. Makes perfect sense. What does it matter that every person has a specialilty. A WAIVER is an exception and id imagine an exception applied for under ground of specialty would probably be under the grounds that they couldnt afford to lose him or her at that time, or were under manned in that specialty, same as in any other waiver condition.

You swear a lot but you dont seem to rationalise anything.

As for being an officer, yes there are sevral ways you can become an officer, you can apply for it, you can be recommended for it, you can be field promoted, any of the three can happen with or without a degree.

You can also complete colledge degree modules while serving which count for it?

Do you KNOW the mans educational status? Do you have any way to assert that in all those years he couldnt very reasonably and very easily achieved the qualifications he needed while serving? No, you dont know ANY of the facts.

Again, theres nothing you are stating here which proves or debunks those facts. He COULD very easily have done all the things stated.