Im pretty much convinced that the ufo's that cant be explained are military aircraft.Ive never bought the alien theory one tiny bit,ive pondered about it..but its pretty much common sense that project paper clip and all the money the american government threw at it delivered the goods so to speak.And yes its been decades,but hell why tell people about it? im pretty sure it wouldnt change anything except people would know we advanced aircraft.The whole alien side is simply propaganda for people to buy into imo.So im sure rumsfeld knows about these military craft,but like i said.Even if the world knew it doesnt change anything..unless it had some type of new energy source,but i think most people are hoping for the alien side of things when it comes to ufo's or atleast alot of people are.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by Solomons]

Originally posted by mikesingh
“REPORTS THAT say something hasn’t happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known unknowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
Rumsfeld, ex Secretary of Defense

huh? What the hell was that? I have no freak'n idea what that babble is. Anyone want to translate?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mikesingh
“REPORTS THAT say something hasn’t happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known unknowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
Rumsfeld, ex Secretary of Defense

huh? What the hell was that? I have no freak'n idea what that babble is. Anyone want to translate?

Read the thread, it is explained what's that quote about. And you won't even have to read much, it's explained on the first page.

Originally posted by TH3ON3

Well let's fire all the men who ever tried to cop a feel or get amorous with a female shall we. That is the lamest case for not believing him I have ever heard.

Do you really not see the difference between a man getting "amourous" with a female he has met in a bar or wherever, and a psychologist who takes advantage of a patient’s trust and sexually exploit them?

At best, this is very, very poor judgement on Dr. Richard Boylan's side. Or perhaps he is just a basically immoral person. Either way, one should be a bit careful about believing what this person says, in my opinion.

Hi Mike, dont really have much input on the topic at hand but just wanted to say you have an awesome thread here. Always read your stuff but this one is pretty thorough and VERY interesting. Starred and flagged my friend!

Originally posted by TH3ON3
Well let's fire all the men who ever tried to cop a feel or get amorous with a female shall we. That is the lamest case for not believing him I have ever heard.

Could you try to dumb down or simplify things any less? He wasn't just copping a feel. He took sexual advantage of women under his 'professional care' in a predatory manner whilst lying to them that they were abductee's.

He abused their rights, trust and the doctor/client relationship - Oh yeah... not to mention THE LAW. He's a straight up con man who doesn't mind lying to vulnerable people. Just the kind of character we need fronting for UFOlogy hey! History has shown he's an immoral huckster that cannot be trusted. It's tantamount to rape. Is that OK by you?

It's obvious you have blinkers on that help you "Deny Your Ignorance" instead of "Denying Ignorance". It appears your 'need to believe' is so strong that you've thrown all common sense and rationale out the window.

Whatever floats your boat TH3ON! Way to show your moral fibre.

IRM

[edit on 10/1/09 by InfaRedMan]

Q: "What Was Donald Rumsfeld Doing At A UFO Symposium?"

A: Hopefully being anal probed with a brick...

...sorry I could not resist. Moon fever has set in.

wZn

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Q: "What Was Donald Rumsfeld Doing At A UFO Symposium?"

A: Hopefully being anal probed with a brick...

wZn

Jeeez! A square peg in a round hole?? Errr...Sorry, I couldn't help that!! Darn! I think I've had a beer too many!!

Cheers!



[edit on 11-1-2009 by mikesingh]

It may be that Rumsfeld and the like are so obviously public they aren't considered in thoe those who "need-to-know" catagory themselves. Maybe, he called Allen to learn from him what he knew. Upon finding Allen didn't know what he thought he might know, Rumsfeld, in his hurt arrogance, implied he knew something, but that if he did know something- which he probably doesn't- he certainly felt Allen and those he deems inferior to him definately have no "need-to-know". If Rumsfeld did know anything, he merely could have had Allen monitored and surveilled, he'd have no need to waste his time speaking to Allen directly, unless, he was genuinely as curious as the rest of us. The problem with politicians is they are too high profile. If, Lord forbid, they were abducted these easily flip flopped politicians would likely roll over and squeal. No the truth lies in the hands of those in anonimity behind the scenes, of whom, even politicians are unaware, who probably don't exist in any database or record anywhere. The "spooks' spook" whom even the "spooks" are unaware of. That's where real wealth, power, and knowledge lies.
And just look at the Congress Committe's report. Their third alternative of a highly intelligent source and operator of these UFO's purposely refuses to allow the theory that UFO's are man made in Nature and only posit Extra Terrestrial possibilities. They focus on a purely scientific point of view, although there are no materials with which to base hypothesis' and observations and conclusions on. Further, they remove, as I pointed out, the human aspect from UFO construction and operation. They deliberately avoid the real National Security concern. Either, they are ours and they are doing a poor job of concealing them, or, they are not ours and belong to others. That latter would mean avoiding disclosure of whether we have similiar or better technologies, or whether other humans on the planet do. Only after you truly rule out the man- made aspect can you posit psychological or other worldly theories. The well laid out Committee report conveniently leaves out these man- made Theory concerns. Could you imagine the panic of others if they are ours? What of our own panic if they are the property of others. Especially, the panic of our enemies if it's ours, or the panic of us if it's our enemies'. What's more, if it's not ours, then do we admit we don't know, so others may make claim to it or vice versa. By, leaving as they do, if it's not ours and it's not theirs, it leaves us all wondering who's and as long as they think it's ours or we think it's theirs, everyone's happy. If we knew the truth it would not only confirm suspicions and settle the matter. It would put the source of panic and concern rightfully where it belongs, and that may not be where those who hide the truth want it to be. After all, if it's nothing but a delusion, what a situation we'd have to deal with. If it's alien, OMG. If it's there's- whomever they are, well, that depends on whose it is, still, it would give many pause and concern. And if it's the US's, the same would apply to others as if it's someone else's. And, if it's not psychological, then, whether man- made or captured from aliens from beyond Earth, the potential for off world resources and Global Supremacy is inestimable.
No one's going to ever admit a darn thing.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mikesingh
“REPORTS THAT say something hasn’t happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known unknowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
Rumsfeld, ex Secretary of Defense

huh? What the hell was that? I have no freak'n idea what that babble is. Anyone want to translate?

REPORTS THAT say something hasn’t happened are interesting to me,
** This opening statement is to prepare you to expect that what is to follow the statement will explain to you why the Reports that say something hasn't happened are the source of a sense of interest for the poster.**

because as we know, there are known unknowns;
**known unknowns ie: the existance of a Diety or AntiMatter or variables in, say, mathematical or scientific, equations.**

there are things we know we know.
**These are things we think, believe, or feel we know either through observation, belief, faith, or acceptance of one form or another.**

We also know there are known unknowns
** This is a fusion of the first two statements. The latter that we know and by proxy of this, the former, that there are things we don't know and our not knowing is a direct result of what we do know. They are equal and opposite extreme contrasts of that which is contrasted, in this case, the contrasted thing is the idea of "Knowledge" and the contrasts are the "presence of knowledge, however derived, and the lack thereof"**

that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
** This just reiterates the aforementioned statement in the post in question, "because as we know, there are known unknowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns".**

But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
** This is the gray area of the contrasted idea of "knowledge", see above, and the contrasted equal and opposite extremes of it, the "presence of knowledge and lack thereof". It is one thing to know a thing, however you know it, and it is another thing to know there is a thing you do not know, however it is that you have not come to know it. It is quite another thing altogether to know a thing, say subconciously, and not know it, say consciencely, however it is that you came to know you know it and regardless of how it is you know it. And, as posited (put forth) herein this particular statement, to vice versa, not know, say consciously, what it is that you do not know, say subconciously, however it is that you do not know that you do not know it and how it is you came to not know it.**

****If you still are having difficulty, then, clearly I am not the one to teach you. Educate yourself.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

[edit on 11-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

Originally posted by converge
Read the thread, it is explained what's that quote about. And you won't even have to read much, it's explained on the first page.

I already read the thread. I did not see it explained.
At least not in any way that I could understand it.

Originally posted by Springer
Rumsfeld was effectively saying "we don't know what we don't know, and what we do know we aren't telling you or anyone else about".

OMG .. I didn't know that you spoke 'Inside the Beltway Doublespeak Spin Babel' (as you call it)!!